TWA Flight 800

[Captain]

ummmmmm, okay. I'm listening.

Isn't there a documentary of NetFlix about it? Maybe I'll go look for more. I was pretty settled in the missile theory.

 

[flyingron]

Oh boy... later in the same series is ..... CHEM TRAILS!

"TWA Flight 800"
"Bigfoot"
"Chemical Contrails": Jet-aircraft vapor trails may be toxic.
"The Roswell Incident"
"John Wayne's Death"
"Cattle Mutilations"
"Near-Death Experiences"
"Alien Abductions"
"Crop Circles"
"The Visitors"
"Strange Encounters"
"The Government Cover Up"
"UFO Phenomenon"
"Government Cover-up"

 

[olasek]

I was pretty settled in the missile theory.

Captain, with all due respect I was really taken aback by this statement, how matter of fact, nonchalantly it sounds. If I believed in the missile theory I would not be sitting in my chair, I would be marching on Washington, organized events, petitioned, since it would most likely implicate US military and some vast cover-up and conspiracy.

 

[MadseasoN]

Oh boy... later in the same series is ..... CHEM TRAILS!

"TWA Flight 800"
"Bigfoot"
"Chemical Contrails": Jet-aircraft vapor trails may be toxic.
"The Roswell Incident"
"John Wayne's Death"
"Cattle Mutilations"
"Near-Death Experiences"
"Alien Abductions"
"Crop Circles"
"The Visitors"
"Strange Encounters"
"The Government Cover Up"
"UFO Phenomenon"
"Government Cover-up"

This morning I saw a couple hundred people waiting to enter a building to worship something they can't prove exists, but they are convinced that it does. Should they be in this list?

 

[Palmpilot]

This morning I saw a couple hundred people waiting to enter a building to worship something they can't prove exists, but they are convinced that it does. Should they be in this list?

Faith is appropriate in the realm of religion; not so much in the realm of crash investigation.

 

[MadseasoN]

Faith is appropriate in the realm of religion; not so much in the realm of crash investigation.

Faith is always needed unless you witness something first hand. Maybe not even then since you're relying on your own experience and knowledge to make a decision about what you saw.

Or you can just believe everything you read and call it a day.

 

[Captain]

Captain, with all due respect I was really taken aback by this statement, how matter of fact, nonchalantly it sounds. If I believed in the missile theory I would not be sitting in my chair, I would be marching on Washington, organized events, petitioned, since it would most likely implicate US military and some vast cover-up and conspiracy.

Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure 9/11 was an inside job too. What are ya going to do? I don't have time to march.

 

[poadeleted21]

Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure 9/11 was an inside job too. What are ya going to do? I don't have time to march.

Just be prepared, I am.

 

[JimNtexas]

How could physical evidence of a missile strike be kept hidden without a conspiracy?

I don't fly a 747, but I studied surface to air missiles for 20 years and worked for a year on live fire ordinance range where combat configured missiles and bombs were expended every week.

The damage caused by a missile or bomb is very distinctive.

There have been airliners hit by SAMs and landed. You can just glance at them and tell what happened.

Certainly when the metallurgists break out their microscopes there is no hiding evidence of a missile or bomb. There is no 'nano-thermite' or 'cellulose missile' can destroy a huge airliner and leave no trace.

TWA800 blew up because of defective wiring in the center fuel tank.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't fly a 747, but I studied surface to air missiles for 20 years and worked for a year on live fire ordinance range where combat configured missiles and bombs were expended every week.

The damage caused by a missile or bomb is very distinctive.

There have been airliners hit by SAMs and landed. You can just glance at them and tell what happened.

Certainly when the metallurgists break out their microscopes there is no hiding evidence of a missile or bomb. There is no 'nano-thermite' or 'cellulose missile' can destroy a huge airliner and leave no trace.

TWA800 blew up because of defective wiring in the center fuel tank.

I'm with you all the way to the last sentence. There's no reasonable doubt that there was a center wing tank ullage explosion, but naming "defective wiring" as the ignition source is only a best guess, i.e., the most probable cause. Might have been frayed, might have been chafed, might have been another component. Only thing of which we can be reasonably certain is that the ignition source was internal to the tank.

 

[flyingron]

I'm with you all the way to the last sentence. There's no reasonable doubt that there was a center wing tank ullage explosion, but naming "defective wiring" as the ignition source is only a best guess, i.e., the most probable cause. Might have been frayed, might have been chafed, might have been another component. Only thing of which we can be reasonably certain is that the ignition source was internal to the tank.

Not just frayed within the tank but there has to have been some crossover elsewhere to get enough voltage/current to arc through the tank wiring bundles.

 

[spinfire]

Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable as any law student or psychology student can tell you. The NTSB report discusses the eyewitness testimony in great detail and cross references all of the accounts against each other. If you haven't already read the report and have already made up your mind I don't know what to tell you.

How many times does the NTSB report for a light single report that a witness heard the engine "sputtering" even though the obvious cause is a stall/spin? Eyewitnesses are primed to report what they think they should have seen and heard.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

Oh boy... later in the same series is ..... CHEM TRAILS!

"TWA Flight 800"
"Bigfoot"
"Chemical Contrails": Jet-aircraft vapor trails may be toxic.
"The Roswell Incident"
"John Wayne's Death"
"Cattle Mutilations"
"Near-Death Experiences"
"Alien Abductions"
"Crop Circles"
"The Visitors"
"Strange Encounters"
"The Government Cover Up"
"UFO Phenomenon"
"Government Cover-up"

I know, right? I was going to start another thread about that, too crazy. They think the vapor trails are a secret goverment experiment using jet fuel to "change the weather" and not even the pilots know.

 

[DouglasBader]

Given the number of documented center wing fuel tank explosions in various Boeing aircraft, including cases where wiring was the spark source, your statements are disingenuous.

There has never been a documented case as you describe, particularly using Jet A. There have been several cases using cut fuels (eg, Jet B and JP4), but none with straight kerosine. Boeing does not have a history of CWT explosions. Furthermore, despite what most here seem to believe, the issue wasnt voltage in the CWT, but reportedly use of the CWT fuel boost pump. The tank did not simply explode, and very detailed, expensive efforts to duplicate the explosion were an utter failure. In fact, in order to produce the explosions that were finally demonstrated in the tank mockup tests, after multiple failures, a special ignition system had to be developed and the tank flooded with propane. None of the investigators or agencies involved were able to duplicate the scenario described.

The fact that the aircraft survivability folks at China Lake and Wright-Patt were able to duplicate both the conditions and the results is even more compelling.

Not really. No such duplication ever took place.

Further, the fact that no MANPAD in the world could hit that plane where it was makes any such assertion ludicrous.

Actually, it can. The CWT is adjacent to the pack outlets, which are the primary heat source from a lower shot aspect, such as a Vanguard or Mistral fired from a boat, below.

The truth is such explosions had been happening in similar Boeing designs for years, but due to various parameters being a bit off optimal, the results had not been as catastrophic (although deaths had occurred, notably in a maintenance-related B-52 accident on the ground at IIRC McConnell AFB in Wichta). It was only a matter of time before all the stars came into alignment and a catastrophic in-flight event occurred. You roll the dice long enough, and eventually you hit snake-eyes.

Actually, that's not the truth, and the 747 in question wasn't fueled with cut fuels, and had no reason to use the CWT override boost pumps. There have been no "similar explosions."

The only way to guarantee not losing at this game is not to roll the dice at all, and that's the recommendation we in the combat aircraft survivability business made to the commercial aviation industry -- inert or foam the tanks, because sometimes there will be an explosive mixture, and sometimes a spark will occur, and eventually they'll both happen at once as they did in TW800, among other incidents both in the US and internationally, like the 737 that blew up at the gate in Manila a few years before TW800, and which was conclusively shown to have been sparked by frayed wiring in the center wing fuel tank.

The Philipines Airlines 737 which you reference was not using straight kerosine, but was using cut fuel. Additionally, the issue, and the subsequent AD issued to cover it, with TWA 800 (and the B747 Classic) was with the use of the fuel boost pumps. It had nothing to do with pack operation or proximity of the packs to the fuel tank, and there is still no limitation regarding pack operation when the CWT is full or empty.

In total, there have been something like 50 fuel tank explosions in the past 60 years, but to relate those to TWA 800 is much like saying that your car is dangerous because a lot of others have crashed. Without common causality, there is no valid reason to connect them.

I will say that we run packs nearly all the time in the desert, with very little fuel in the CWT, and have zero problems. Neither the FAA, nor the NTSB ever considered it a problem, which is why there are no limitations regarding pack operation in high temperatures (or otherwise) on the ground, regardless of how much fuel in in the CWT.

Of course, the airlines refused to accept the associated cost and weight penalties of fuel tank ullage explosion protection systems, so the crap game continues. At least they now know what conditions are most conducive to explosivity, and they have put in place procedures to minimize the risk of those conditions occurring, but all they did was reduce the odds, not eliminate the problem.

As for there sometimes being a spark, there's nothing to spark in the CWT, as there are no live voltages in there. There's no wiring which might spark, either. Additionally, in every effort to duplicate the CWT explosion, sparks in the tank were unable to ignite the tank, until a mixture was introduced into the tank which is not ever found in operation or in the aircraft, and even then it was only introduced to create an explosion for effect. The test tank could not be blown up, otherwise. The testing agencies were 100% unsuccessful in creating an explosion using anything found in the aircraft, and they failed repeatedly when putting ignitors and other devices in the tank that aren't found in the aircraft.

As I said, I'm not going to enter into an argument about it; anyone associated with the aircraft or who operates it regularly with whom I'm familiar, from mechanics to crew, don't believe that it was a simply CWT explosion as the NTSB (et al) suggests. Nobody.

The CWT AD, and the "fix" for the problem that was never actually found, is that if any fuel is to be used from the CWT, it must contain at least 17,000 lbs. That is, if one intends to use 1,000 lbs of fuel in the CWT, then it must be filled with 17,000 lbs, and the reason is to cover the boost pumps. If more than 50,000 lbs of fuel is put in the CWT, then it can be burned down to 3,000 lbs, and the remainder removed with a scavenge pump. If less than 50,000 lbs is in the tank, it can be burned down to 7,000 in the climb, then down to 3,000 in level flight, and the remainder scavenged.

Again, the point is to keep the boost pumps submerged. The reasoning behind the AD is to prevent the pump impellers from overspeeding, overheating the bearings, and causing damage.

The fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) was addressed repeatedly, but as it contains no live voltage and works simply off capacitance and comparative values, and because the original system is still in use as part of three different FQIS systems found in the Classic 747, it's not the culprit, and could never have been the culprit. Despite having been tagged as part of the issue, there's nothing a "frayed wire" could do to duplicate what's been suggested, and nobody was ever able to locate such wiring or show it to be the case.

The CWT in the Classic holds more fuel in weight than a fully loaded DC9. It's seldom used; it's not used unless the main fuel load exceeds 230,000 lbs, which is the standard max wing fuel load with the main fuel tanks and aux tanks full. A transatlantic flight such as TWA 800 took didn't require CWT fuel; normally only a small amount remains in the CWT, and this would only present a hazard if the CWT override boost pumps were left on continuously. these pumps, in the middle of the fuel module on the FE panel, aren't turned on except under certain circumstances (dedicated CWT fuel feed configuration or a jettison situation), and display a bright amber LOW PRESS indication for each pump if turned on when insufficient fuel is available to pump (less than approx. 3000 lbs in the CWT). These aren't switches that simply get left on inadvertently, and they're also part of the interior cockpit safety inspection that's first done upon arriving at the airplane.

Use of the CWT override boost pumps wouldn't have been part of the takeoff or climb fuel feed configurations in use in TWA 800, for a number of reasons. It's unreasonable, in fact, to suggest that fuel would have been in use or pumps would have been in use in that tank during that phase of flight.

I regularly operate the B747 into Afghanistan and other sensitive locations. I'm aware of a few crews of FE's that prefer to shut off the packs to reduce the heat signature during the final approach phases of the flight, but I don't require that, and don't see the need. It is the most likely source, however, for a MANPAD or other shot from an aspect beneath the aircraft, or for any heat seeking surface to air shot.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yeah, well, I'm pretty sure 9/11 was an inside job too...

There were a couple of long debates on that topic on the AOPA Forum:

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p=1418349#post1418349

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?p=1045232#post1045232

(Apparently AOPA membership is required to read them.)

 

[Datadriver]

This morning I saw a couple hundred people waiting to enter a building to worship something they can't prove exists, but they are convinced that it does. Should they be in this list?

And they were physically assembling in public based on their beliefs. The twa800 missile crowd is not.

 

[Datadriver]

I don't fly a 747, but I studied surface to air missiles for 20 years and worked for a year on live fire ordinance range where combat configured missiles and bombs were expended every week.

The damage caused by a missile or bomb is very distinctive.

There have been airliners hit by SAMs and landed. You can just glance at them and tell what happened.

Certainly when the metallurgists break out their microscopes there is no hiding evidence of a missile or bomb. There is no 'nano-thermite' or 'cellulose missile' can destroy a huge airliner and leave no trace.

TWA800 blew up because of defective wiring in the center fuel tank.

This.

 

[poadeleted20]

There has never been a documented case as you describe, particularly using Jet A. There have been several cases using cut fuels (eg, Jet B and JP4), but none with straight kerosine. Boeing does not have a history of CWT explosions.

Except they do -- I did the research 15 years ago as part of my job.

Furthermore, despite what most here seem to believe, the issue wasnt voltage in the CWT, but reportedly use of the CWT fuel boost pump.

Reported by whom? Fact is, nobody knows for sure what the ignition source was.

The tank did not simply explode, and very detailed, expensive efforts to duplicate the explosion were an utter failure. In fact, in order to produce the explosions that were finally demonstrated in the tank mockup tests, after multiple failures, a special ignition system had to be developed and the tank flooded with propane. None of the investigators or agencies involved were able to duplicate the scenario described.

You take all the factors involved, and duplicating all of them is flat impossible. But the aircraft survivability community has thoroughly demonstrated that it can happen.

Actually, it can. The CWT is adjacent to the pack outlets, which are the primary heat source from a lower shot aspect, such as a Vanguard or Mistral fired from a boat, below.

Vanguard wasn't available then, and it was outside the Mistral's envelope. Beyond that, I cannot comment on classified information.

The Philipines Airlines 737 which you reference was not using straight kerosine, but was using cut fuel. Additionally, the issue, and the subsequent AD issued to cover it, with TWA 800 (and the B747 Classic) was with the use of the fuel boost pumps. It had nothing to do with pack operation or proximity of the packs to the fuel tank, and there is still no limitation regarding pack operation when the CWT is full or empty.

Pack operation is what elevated the temperature of the fuel/air mix into the explosive range. Well documented and demonstrated.

I don't have the time or interest to continue with this. It's clear you don't have the background and expertise in aircraft survivability/vulnerability or complete knowledge of weapons systems capabilities, and I can't teach you that here. Further, you completely ignore the total lack of evidence of a missile hit and the heap of evidence that the explosion was triggered internally.

You believe what you want, but it wasn't a missile. I'm done.

 

[dell30rb]

What is the max altitude of a stinger or similar missile? TWA 800 was only at 15,000ft and climbing so it was not going that fast...

I believe that it was not a missile, would be some distinctive evidence.. shrapnel...

 

[poadeleted20]

What is the max altitude of a stinger or similar missile? TWA 800 was only at 15,000ft and climbing so it was not going that fast...

That's out of the envelope of anything a terrorist would have had back then.

I believe that it was not a missile, would be some distinctive evidence.. shrapnel...

Exactly.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

What is the max altitude of a stinger or similar missile? TWA 800 was only at 15,000ft and climbing so it was not going that fast...

I believe that it was not a missile, would be some distinctive evidence.. shrapnel...

For the Russian made Strela mods which were online at that time, 4500-5000 meters.

For the most modern US made Stingers today - 3 miles. TWA 800 was at 15k and over water. Add in slant range from land and it was out of range of the most advanced MANPADs of today. But range is moot since any IR guided missile would have hit an engine, not the center tank.

 

[dell30rb]

Also, 95% of the airplane was recovered, and the wreckage has been reconstructed..

"The wreckage is now permanently stored in an NTSB facility in Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia that was custom built for the purpose. The reconstructed aircraft is used to train accident investigators."

#1 rule of cover up is to get rid of the evidence, everyone knows that. Even my dog

 

[DouglasBader]

TWA 800 was at 15k and over water.

13,800 at time of impact.

Add in slant range from land and it was out of range of the most advanced MANPADs of today.

It was fired from the water, not from land.

But range is moot since any IR guided missile would have hit an engine, not the center tank.

No, it wouldn't. It would have looked to the packs, which provide a much better heat source from beneath the aircraft, especially from a forward aspect.

The packs, of course, are directly adjacent to the center wing tank, which was not in use and had no source of ignition, except, of course, a missile.

Specifics regarding weapons capability need not be detailed here, save it be said that most certainly a number of man portable and available weapons were available within the height and speed envelope of TWA 800. The wrong aircraft was shot down; not the one intended (that would be El Al), but it was shot down.

TWA 800 was only at 15,000ft and climbing so it was not going that fast...

13,800', and above 10,000', climbing at approximately 320 KIAS for that weight.

You take all the factors involved, and duplicating all of them is flat impossible.

Duplicating any of them thus far has proven impossible.

But the aircraft survivability community has thoroughly demonstrated that it can happen.

Not so far.

It's clear you don't have the background and expertise in aircraft survivability/vulnerability or complete knowledge of weapons systems capabilities, and I can't teach you that here.

It's clear, is it? You know nothing about my background, but have it your way.

It's clear you know nothing about the 747.

 

[Skylane81E]

 

[Threefingeredjack]

13,800 at time of impact.



It was fired from the water, not from land.



No, it wouldn't. It would have looked to the packs, which provide a much better heat source from beneath the aircraft, especially from a forward aspect.

The packs, of course, are directly adjacent to the center wing tank, which was not in use and had no source of ignition, except, of course, a missile.

Specifics regarding weapons capability need not be detailed here, save it be said that most certainly a number of man portable and available weapons were available within the height and speed envelope of TWA 800. The wrong aircraft was shot down; not the one intended (that would be El Al), but it was shot down.



13,800', and above 10,000', climbing at approximately 320 KIAS for that weight.



Duplicating any of them thus far has proven impossible.



Not so far.



It's clear, is it? You know nothing about my background, but have it your way.

It's clear you know nothing about the 747.

Even at 13.8 it was out of range for a shoulder launched missile. It would have taken a larger SAM to reach that altitude. Just give me the specs on the missile you think was used. Remember if it was launched from the sea it would need a stable element attached to the launcher, or a sophisticated laser ring gyro in the missile to be able to fly off a rocking small, or even medium sized, boat. Name a missile of that capability that could have been acquired and used. It's a simple question.

 

[poadeleted20]

Jack: He may know 747's, but he obviously doesn't know aircraft vulnerability analysis, threat capabilities, or ballistic damage analysis. And I can't really teach him that here. -- Ron

 

[Captain]

Even at 13.8 it was out of range for a shoulder launched missile. It would have taken a larger SAM to reach that altitude. Just give me the specs on the missile you think was used. Remember if it was launched from the sea it would need a stable element attached to the launcher, or a sophisticated laser ring gyro in the missile to be able to fly off a rocking small, or even medium sized, boat. Name a missile of that capability that could have been acquired and used. It's a simple question.

Here's one.

Named missile

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's one.

Named missile

Even if you could figure out how to steal one, I'd like to see you pick that up, carry it around, and shoot it. And even then, what would you use as an illuminator? Or are you reopening the old conspiracy theory theory that a US Navy ship accidentally or on purpose shot down TW800 (the problem of the damage being completely inconsistent with a proximity-fused weapon notwithstanding)?

 

[DaleB]

Even if you could figure out how to steal one, I'd like to see you pick that up, carry it around, and shoot it. And even then, what you use as an illuminator?

I think the suggestion is that the Navy was trying to shoot down another flight and somehow couldn't tell one 747 from the other. They all look the same from the bottom. Of course the Vincennes couldn't tell an A300 from an F14...

 

[N801BH]

I think the suggestion is that the Navy was trying to shoot down another flight and somehow couldn't tell one 747 from the other. They all look the same from the bottom. Of course the Vincennes couldn't tell an A300 from an F14...

Touch'e

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the suggestion is that the Navy was trying to shoot down another flight and somehow couldn't tell one 747 from the other. They all look the same from the bottom. Of course the Vincennes couldn't tell an A300 from an F14...

I'm familiar with that unsupported theory. Unfortunately, even if the Navy managed to erase all record of such a ship being in the area, and figured a way that in the 15 years since nobody with knowledge of it breathed a word of it to anyone, the damage to the aircraft is totally inconsistent with the warhead of such a missile. Unless (going back to my earlier comment), the conspirators managed to surreptitiously secure and hide/destroy all the wreckage of TW800, create a complete set of substitute wreckage consistent with a CWT ullage explosion caused by an internal ignition source, and then place all that wreckage on the ocean floor for the NTSB to find -- and kept all that secret, too.

To hell with this. Sun's over the yardarm. Jack Daniel's time.

 

[DaleB]

I'm familiar with that unsupported theory. Unfortunately, even if the Navy managed to erase all record of such a ship being in the area, and figured a way that in the 15 years since nobody with knowledge of it breathed a word of it to anyone, the damage to the aircraft is totally inconsistent with the warhead of such a missile. Unless (going back to my earlier comment), the conspirators managed to surreptitiously secure and hide/destroy all the wreckage of TW800, create a complete set of substitute wreckage consistent with a CWT ullage explosion caused by an internal ignition source, and then place all that wreckage on the ocean floor for the NTSB to find -- and kept all that secret, too.

Oh, I know... I wasn't suggesting that actually happened. It would more likely have been one of the CIA's small fleet of super-stealth "black ships", crewed by hardened guys who would never breathe a word.

To hell with this. Sun's over the yardarm. Jack Daniel's time.

Not for me, yet... I have a flyin' lesson in an hour. Time to grab my bag and hope for less gusty conditions. The Jack will come later.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I'm familiar with that unsupported theory. Unfortunately, even if the Navy managed to erase all record of such a ship being in the area, and figured a way that in the 15 years since nobody with knowledge of it breathed a word of it to anyone, the damage to the aircraft is totally inconsistent with the warhead of such a missile. Unless (going back to my earlier comment), the conspirators managed to surreptitiously secure and hide/destroy all the wreckage of TW800, create a complete set of substitute wreckage consistent with a CWT ullage explosion caused by an internal ignition source, and then place all that wreckage on the ocean floor for the NTSB to find -- and kept all that secret, too.

To hell with this. Sun's over the yardarm. Jack Daniel's time.

Yeah, some folks don't let facts get in the way of their delusions. it's Glenlivet for me!!!!

 

[mikea]

So called witnesses are often horribly unreliable, it has been known from the past that even large number of people could be affected by visual hoaxes, over-interpretation, ability to see things they want to see, etc...

Remember the "missile launch" from Santa Barbara?

 

[DouglasBader]

The US Navy had nothing to do with the shootdown. That's a conspiracy theory.

Jack: He may know 747's, but he obviously doesn't know aircraft vulnerability analysis, threat capabilities, or ballistic damage analysis. And I can't really teach him that here. -- Ron

Where were you to help me in Iraq and other locations? and it's hard to imagine getting by without you presently, that's for sure. Obviously doesn't know...You already said that. You're probably right. We were just bumbling along over there. Still are, of course.

To hell with this.

You said that before.

Even at 13.8 it was out of range for a shoulder launched missile... Name a missile of that capability that could have been acquired and used. It's a simple question.

Other than the French Mistral (coming to a market near you, over 16,000 sold), with a height envelope easily encompassing TWA 800...other options existed as well. The Vanguard, the SA-7, etc. Each was capable, and TWA 800 was within the threat envelope for each. With over five hundred thousand MANPADS estimated to be in arsenals around the world, over one hundred thousand complete systems, fifteen different primary manufacturers, and over a hundred different states holding purchase ordersor stockpiles, as well as fifteen or so non-state entities (including terrorist organizations) having possession, and many thousands unaccounted, they're available and out there, and do present a credible threat. TWA 800 was shot down, and was not outside the threat envelope for various available man portable and crew launched weapons. After the downing, only one boat in the area failed to respond, but departed the area at high speed; the boat containing the launch crew and remaining equipment.

 

[Gmaper]

So, who thinks we didn't really land men on the moon? My barber years ago insisted that the entire moon landing was filmed in New Mexico and was apart of a cover-up by the government because of the huge sums of money being spent.

 

[Palmpilot]

Popular Photography once carried an article claiming that the Russian photos of the far side of the moon were faked, because the author didn't understand that the jagged edges of the image were a normal consequence of the way images are transmitted electronically.