Q: We have a number of issues to deal with this evening; the first one is the subject of Flight 990. There have been a number of scenarios suggested by the media and other sources on the internet. One of them says that the autopilot was disengaged BEFORE the plane began to dive. Is this the case?
A: No. Plane was disturbed from flight path by windburst, therefore, autopilot was disengaged in order to better combat problem.
Q: There has been a big controversy going on. One of the contributors to this controversy was Ed Dames who, on the Art Bell show, claimed that his organization "remote viewed" the situation and that there had been a fight in the cockpit. This claim was made, I believe, before the flight data recorders were retrieved. So, this was a scenario that the media picked up. Then, after one of the recorders was found, for a short while, this idea was popular, because it seemed to explain the crazy behavior of the aircraft. But then the voice recorder was found, and there was no real evidence to support the "fight" scenario, but there was a sort of prayerful exclamation heard, being made by the co-pilot who was, apparently alone in the cockpit when the activity began. Then, the pilot returned and there were sounds of desperate activity and so forth, so the next scenario proposed was that the co-pilot had decided to commit suicide in a big way. As a result of this Ed Dames episode on Art Bell, followed by the NTSB and FBI trying to fit the clues to Dames' scenario, there is now the suggestion making the rounds of the internet rumor mongers that Ed Dames is in the employ of the "powers that be," and that he deliberately planted this story so that they could then come along and validate it to give him more credibility so that he would be in place to plant more and greater rumors and stories of the disinformation variety. Is that the case? Did Ed Dames and his group accurately remote view the cockpit of Flight 990?
A: No. Ed was hoping for a "hit."
Q: So, Ed Dames is NOT in the employ of the "Powers that be?"
A: No.
Q: Was the co-pilot suicidal?
A: No.
Q: So, what he said was the equivalent of "Oh my God!" or something?
A: Close.
Q: Now, I have another correspondent who was on a beach about a hundred miles west of the crash site. This individual was with a companion and they both saw an orange glow in the direction of the crash at approximately the time of the event. This orange glow was, in her opinion, anomalous, and quickly disappeared. Was what was seen by my correspondent an effect of this plane crash?
A: Possibly linked, but not likely.
Q: Well, the question now comes about the nature of the "windburst." You previously said about this that "mysteries are subjective." Did you mean to imply that we could have or should have followed up with questions about the windburst itself?
A: No, these things happen. Sometimes a fault in autopilot analog computer causes system to fail to adjust properly, thus causing an attitude aberration in wingtips. Planes can dive suddenly and inexplicably. Refer to April 1979, Flint Michigan, TWA flight nonstop from New York to Minneapolis. Quick pilot reaction saved that one, but it was close, very close! Included same "g-force" anomalies, i.e. passengers floating out of their seats, etc. Suggest you look this up on internet. Aircraft manufacturers jealously protect their "turf." 1999 incident involved Boeing 767, 1979 incident was a 727. At root is the fact that Boeing is feeling Airbus Industrie Inc. nipping at its heels. It is all that 3rd density STS love of money stuff, you know!
Q: (A) Well, about this windburst, was there some dimensional phenomenon or trans-density window as we have suggested on our site? (L) Was it an ordinary windburst? I think I have heard that it is impossible to have a windburst at that altitude.
A: Not "ordinary," but not trans-density, or dimensional. It was a Jetstream "eddy."
Q: So, there were no rays, beams, microwaves, trans-density or dimensional windows, weird, anomalous, conspiratorial event going on here?
A: No, no, no, no, no!
Q: It was just a terrible tragedy. The pilots fought as hard as they could to save the plane, but were unable to do so, and the bottom line is a lot of people died?
A: Yes, but as is common in all-out emergencies, the human factor was not "perfect." Pilots were working at cross purposes, but not intentionally! Look up the data on the 1979 case and point this out to the conspiracy thirsty correspondents!
Q: Next item on the agenda: the loss of the new Mars probe. As of the latest I heard, it had still not "called home." Is the Mars probe lost?
A: Not lost, just partly dysfunctional.
Q: Why is it dysfunctional? Or partly dysfunctional?
A: Rocky surface, misallignment of antennae, slight damage to communications package. may still be retrievable if technicians can locate proper backup software inlet.
Q: So, that is the advice to try to save the mission?
A: Yes.
Q: Anything else?
A: No.
Q: So, there is no conspiracy there, either?
A: It is just as dangerous and just as useless to "see" conspiracy in everything s it is to "see" conspiracy in nothing. We tire of conspiracy "buffs." They are nutty, and serve as perfect false sponsors to those who really DO seek to conduct widespread mental/psychic manipulations and control.
