News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by 13of40 on Sunday September 25, 2022 @01:50PM (#32973936)
Ah, I'm finally in my element here. I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles, and there's nothing so unintuitive about them that a layperson would confuse them with, say, a cloud. In other words, it's a thing in the sky with fire and smoke coming out one end, traveling way faster than you would expect. Probably making a loud, high-pitched roar, depending on where you're sitting. I can't imagine 40 people giving the same mistaken testimony. On the other hand, mass hysteria is a thing, so who knows.
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by jeffbee on Sunday September 25, 2022 @02:07PM (#32974131)
The witness accounts of the supposed missile cited in the official account all describe the missile as ascending, but to fit the theory of this lawsuit it would have been fired from 120 miles away - let's just ignore that this is far out of the effective range of the rocket in question - and would have appeared to have been travelling horizontally to observers on the ground.
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by closewith on Sunday September 25, 2022 @02:26PM (#32974368)
> In other words, it's a thing in the sky with fire and smoke coming out one end, traveling way faster than you would expect.

With respect, by the time a patriot missile reaches a target like an airliner at altitude, the motor is long burnt out. No fire and no smoke (until the fuze detonates), just kinetic energy being bled for terminal guidance.

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by phkahler on Sunday September 25, 2022 @02:58PM (#32974753)
Sure, if it was a patriot missile? And since it obviously hit the wrong target who says the range was long enough to reach engine burn out. The deniers here are just making shit up.

Sometimes the government and its contractors would do better to own their mistakes, take the financial hit, and move on. Yet here we are 25 years later still dealing with it and burning credibility.

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by ceejayoz on Sunday September 25, 2022 @02:10PM (#32974174)
> I went through a few years in which I saw many anti-aircraft missiles...

How many exploding, breaking-up 747s, though?

Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by 13of40 on Sunday September 25, 2022 @02:14PM (#32974215)
I don't think we ever had the training budget for that.
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by salawat on Sunday September 25, 2022 @02:26PM (#32974369)
Come now. If you've seen one detonation compromosing a man made structure, nevermind one that is carefully constructed specifically to repeatedly take off under its own power you've seen about all you need to see.
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by ceejayoz on Sunday September 25, 2022 @02:47PM (#32974600)
Quite simply, “that looks like a missile” and “that is a missile” are not the same. Especially from 20+ miles away.
Re:Citing new evidence, families sue feds, Raytheon, Lockhee... by mirekrusin on Sunday September 25, 2022 @02:57PM (#32974736)
> Quite simply, “that looks like a missile” and “that is a missile” are not the same. Especially from 20+ miles away.

It could be superman.