Proof Number Two:
Proof of Deliberate Fraud Within The NTSB Report...

Example 2: Alteration and Fabrication of Evidence

Basic Presumptions: 1) In any cover up undertaken by an investigative body, any attempt to foster some false conclusion will usually require that key evidence is altered or fabricated to support the desired conclusion; 2) In any crash investigation, the debris field data is a key determinant to understanding the cause of the crash, especially with respect to what fell off the aircraft first, and where it was recovered. It is a key to understanding the sequencing of events in the aircraft breakup; 3) Any attempt to alter or fabricate debris data is, therefore, highly suspect.

It could be argued that the prior example is also alteration of evidence (plots being moved on the graphic and the arbitrary addition of 'End of Data' marker), but more dramatic examples exist. The NTSB report explains at great length in Exhibit 22A the process by which they consider debris field data with respect to determining departure points from the aircraft along its final trajectory. A brief summary sufficient to the need here is that a computer program called BREAKUP considers the location of each debris item and its individual aerodynamics and mass to compute its probable path through the air. In all, thousands of items were recovered, but the chief focus is on the so-called Red Zone, the area in the ocean representing the first items off the aircraft -- those items closest to the take-off point. However, there is a problem with two particular pieces early off the aircraft, both of which would seem to have fallen outside of areas considered normal with the given parameters.

A piece identified as RF35 in the plot on page 24 (not numbered) would appear to be the first item in the group off the aircraft. NTSB apparently had difficulty with this piece, worried it had fallen off the aircraft too soon based on their time-line calculations. A second piece, RF19B, is also problematic, and it is found in the graphics plot on page 23 (not numbered). There is a problem with this piece which is not addressed within the report, likely because it appears buried amid other plots in a way that no one will notice the problem. Yet there is ample evidence the plot has been tampered with by the preparer of the report, and the solution applied seems related to piece RF35. Here and on the next page, find ballistic references for both RF35 and RF19B as had been provided within the report for each item plotted the report dealt with (or so it would seem).

These two data sheets are from pages 55 and 51, respectively (not numbered) of Exhibit 22B. Compare the weight/size of the two pieces (blue highlight added), the resulting ballistic formulae (yellow highlight added), and the falling modes (pink highlights added). These are clearly remarkably different pieces which are described as falling in notably different manners and differing ballistic coefficients. What is important to consider for the purpose of Example 2 is that items of entirely different weight and aerodynamic properties, not to mention variances in departure point, altitudes, speeds, etc., should not exhibit virtually identical falling characteristics through time and space to their final resting places.

If they used the standard plot assumptions and methods, the RF35 piece would have ended up originating from the aircraft at a point not supportive of CWS failure, though they only talk about time frame issues in their discussion. They spend some time rationalizing an alternative in page 11 (not numbered) of Exhibit 22A. NTSB could not, under FBI orders, presuppose any force such as a missile imparting excessive velocities or tag-a-long effects which would account for these exceptions, so it had to rely on more creative resolution. They state the obvious and key element, however 'assuming the piece departed the aircraft with the same initial velocity...', the entire problem with the entire NTSB report -- they make presumptions designed to support dictated and predetermined conclusions, rather than considering the facts with an open mind in order to find a cause. The ultimate NTSB solution is to redefine RF35's ballistic coefficient to represent that of something which flies: 'Therefore flying is the most probable reason for the position of piece RF35.'

Note that piece RF19 (next page) offers two differing ballistic coefficients, but neither resembles that of RF35. Further, note that in describing the ballistic coefficient means for RF 35, they describe a process designed to minimize the flying capabilities of the piece -- probably because the normal coefficient for flying would put the piece too far away because of its mass. That would be an example of tweaking the formulae until desired results were obtained.

The actual BREAKUP plots for these two pieces were originally on two separate sets of graphics, and probably for good reason. Below, they have been combined into a single graphic in order to show why, modified with red arrows/text for the purpose. Please note the two boxes with X marks, which represent Transponder response signals known to originate from the aircraft, key timing events used by NTSB in relation to the initiating event. The initiating event is allegedly AFTER the last transponder 'hit' (the second hit), but note the graphic shows RF35 departing well prior to that transponder hit. Thus, they spent time in analysis of this and rationalized that the piece must have 'flown' to its resting place (red arc arrow added -- arbitrary path for illustration of NTSB concept).

From Pages 23 and 24 Respectively (unnumbered in report) of NTSB Report 22b

What the rationalizing ultimately means, of course, is that RF35 'flew' out of position. It landed more nearly perpendicular to the flight path of the aircraft, and more radically rearward than the generalized flight paths of other pieces. What is problematic is that an examination of the data for the many other pieces plotted reveals many of them to be described as fliers, too -- yet they simply flew further -- they didn't change course like RF35. NTSB fails to address this curiosity, and in so doing, again fails to consider that the piece might have been knocked off common trajectory by some other force or might have actually left the aircraft well before the NTSB claims CWS exploded. Either would disprove NTSB theory, and either would support missile fire as cause.

The second problem is more serious. As stated, there is a problem with RF19 that perhaps we were not to have noticed: That it fell nearly as far as RF35 -- a neat trick for a piece weighing only 12 ounces and not flying. Imagine, if you will, a flat bit of metal being suddenly ejected into an air stream of over 300 MPH. Tossing a bit of paper out of your car on the freeway would be a good illustration. Something that light and of that shape would likely be overcome very quickly by the air stream and reduce speed far more dramatically than something weighing nearly 400 lbs., having momentum of mass, and described as 'flying'. The question arises then, as to how the computer was able to think that RF19 flew as far as RF35? The logical answer, of course, is that it could not, not given the wide variation in data and the final ballistic coefficients claimed. It might if it, too, suffered a tag-along hit, but of course NTSB could not allow such thinking. It would therefore beg further study, and warn us to be on the lookout for similar irregularities (identical plots).

It is perhaps even more telling that RF19 and RF 35 are adjacent pieces, suggesting they may have actually departed the aircraft at the same time, making the actual flight path of RF19 even greater in distance -- a definite tag-a-long candidate. But even the greater mass pieces, many of them fliers, did not travel that far as RF19 according to the plot, so even saying it was a flier would not work. Thus, it may be that NTSB simply elected to leave well enough alone, and not draw attention to the item with an explanation. Thankfully, they did plot it, probably because it was on someone's master list of key pieces, and could not be altogether ignored. But looking at the plots not only causes concern over the impossibility of the plot being real, but also, comparing with RF35 makes us wonder at why they are so IDENTICAL as to suggest copy-and-paste operations. If we know the plot of R19 is IMPOSSIBLE, then WHERE DID THE PLOT COME FROM?

In any absence of NTSB explanation, study again falls to RF35 for determining what may have happened. Note that both pieces do use the same plot symbols (+++), a fact which may be more than mere coincidence. Note that both plots seem at even close inspection to be virtually identical in shape and length, and spacing of individual plots, yet another coincidence. Not only is NTSB asking we believe they fell as far, but that at any given point in time relative to departure, they flew the same relative distance and direction the entire event. So startlingly similar are these plots, that we might be moved to print them both and place one over the other above a bright light for better comparison. Any attempt to do so will reveal them identical, save that RF19 has one fewer plot points. It is almost as if someone has simply copied and pasted the plot from one graph (where it is out in the open and easy to 'copy'), and pasted it into position on the second graph, and eliminated the extra plot so as to fit it to the line. This might have been seen as necessary if it was true they could not plot the same.

Careful analysis by attempting to duplicate the feat does indicate that the plots are not exactly the same, though there are only mere pixels between them as if resizeing might have taken place to better fit the paste to a desired target size. Regardless, even without a concern over a possible copy and paste operation, this remarkably close match is a very curious way for two so distinctively differing pieces to have fallen in tandem fashion -- especially since the smaller piece allegedly fell from a point in time and space where the aircraft was falling ever slower, and lower, and well after the alleged initial explosive event. It would seem impossible for both plots to be correct. One of them must be bogus. With respect to the copy-and-paste issue, there will be an even better match between questionable plots shown in the section below.

Summary: There is evidence of altering or fabricating evidence within the NTSB report. This is evidence of a cover up

NEXT EXAMPLE