Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockheed over 1996 TWA crash

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by woodruffw on Sunday September 25, 2022 @12:59PM (#32973336)

My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up, meaning that they were most likely seeing large sections of the burning fuselage. Are there other eyewitness accounts that don’t match that, or are you saying that the official chronology is itself suspect?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by MichaelCollins on Sunday September 25, 2022 @01:02PM (#32973372)

Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and may be completely mistaken. But nevertheless, they are evidence.

'Evidence' doesn't imply 'proof'.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by woodruffw on Sunday September 25, 2022 @01:05PM (#32973408)

The existence of evidence is not veridical in nature: that’s why we classify evidence as circumstantial, observed, etc.

In other words: if nothing has changed about the eyewitness accounts in the last 26 years, then there is no new reason to doubt the (overwhelmingly likely) explanation for them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by MichaelCollins on Sunday September 25, 2022 @01:51PM (#32973941)

I responded to the claim "there is literally zero evidence for it" by pointing out that there is circumstantial evidence, and eyewitness accounts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by growse on Sunday September 25, 2022 @03:50PM (#32975310)

The problem is that this circumstantial evidence contradicts actual hard evidence on the wreckage.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by MichaelCollins on Monday September 26, 2022 @12:34AM (#32979465)

Circumstantial evidence that seems to be contradicted by other evidence is still evidence. To claim that there is 'literally zero evidence' is literally wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by Gamecollector on Sunday September 25, 2022 @04:23PM (#32975721)

> My understanding is that the chronology of all eyewitness accounts for the missile have been after the airframe was known to have broken up

This statement is absurd on its face unless all the witnesses were simultaneously staring at the seconds ticking on a nuclear clock as they witnessed the plane explode. The whole thing would've transpired in less than a minute. There's no way they could pinpoint the timing of witnesses observations that accurately.

[ Parent | on HN ]