Eisspeedway

Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Yobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
4,733,870 edits
m cleanup, Removed: |nested=yes (8), using AWB
EditorASC (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
2,858 edits
→Notes: Degani chapter does not verify the erroneous statemen in foot note # 6. I propose a delete of that very poorly worded note.
Line 194: Line 194:
http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/SoSakhalinGiveaway.htm The map, progesion of documents, and the Treaty of San Francisco have a marked bearing on KAL 007 matters. State Department Watch has its main concern with a number of Islands, including Wrangel, and not primarily on Sakhalin. But someone might have published more on the connection to Sakhalin and KAL 007 Bert
http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/SoSakhalinGiveaway.htm The map, progesion of documents, and the Treaty of San Francisco have a marked bearing on KAL 007 matters. State Department Watch has its main concern with a number of Islands, including Wrangel, and not primarily on Sakhalin. But someone might have published more on the connection to Sakhalin and KAL 007 Bert
Schlossberg
Schlossberg

==Notes==

Unless anyone has severe objections (supported by good reasons), I am planning on deleting '''note # 6''', which currently says:

:'''"^ INS mode, while accurate to within a mile, is not accurate enough for take-off and landing. HEADING mode is typically used during take-off and landing, as runways are by convention aligned on a magnetic heading. (Degani, 2001)"'''

My reason for deleting is that is a very confusing statement, with the latter part not being true at all. The autopilot heading mode is not used to make approaches and landings, nor for takeoff. When the AP heading mode is used to vector to intercept the final approach course of the typical ILS approach, the autopilot is armed to capture that final approach localizer and fly it inbound to the runway with the ILS mode of the AP, not the heading mode. It would be both dangerous and illegal to try and use the AP heading mode to make a landing. And, for takeoff, the autopilot is not allowed to be on at all, so it would be impossible to be using the AP heading mode for takeoff. I could find nothing in the Degani chapter 4, where he discusses the functions of the AP modes, to support that incomprehensible statement of note # 6. Degani did not say anything like that, so the citation is worthless. [[User:EditorASC|EditorASC]] ([[User talk:EditorASC|talk]]) 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


== Warning shots/ Tracer rounds ==
== Warning shots/ Tracer rounds ==

Revision as of 03:53, 29 September 2009

Good articleKorean Air Lines Flight 007 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 13, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
March 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 26, 2009Good article nomineeListed
May 9, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article


The Alvin Snyder incident in the aftermath section

I have added , some of Alvin Snyders comments in his article in Washington Post , september 1, 1996, in the "Aftermath" section of the article. It is well documented, and it is an important article from Washington Post, since Alvin Snyder was in the centre of all the activities concerning the U.S handling of the KAL 007 incident.

http://www.alvinsnyder.com/the_truth_about_korean_airlines_flight_007_8994.htm

I especially find it interesting , that Alvin Snyder says that Osipovich fired warningshots with his machine cannon - the very same thing, was in the transmission from the swedish television in september 1983 !! I think the transcripts of russian transmission on the conservapedia article is not quite complete or perhaps wrongly translated . Alvin Snyder also reports that Osipovich tipped his wings as a signal to KAL 007 - that is also not on the transcript in the conservapedia article - something is definitely missing there.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007#The_Osipovich.E2.80.93Air_Controller_KAL_007_Identity_miscommunication

Understandable science (talk 17:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody changed a lot in this sections text, and I have tried to clean up , as best as I can. Someone removed the links and wanted clarification of what agency USIA ( United States Information Agency) was - I have provided the answer with links, and provided links to the article, that has Alvin Snyder´s statements. Just want to give a link to the original article in Washington Post, september 1, 1996: 

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/10192271.html?dids=10192271&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS&date=Sep+1%2C+1996&author=Snyder%2C+Alvin+A&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=C2&desc=Flight+007%3A++The+rest+of+the+story

A link to Alvin Snyders curriculum vitae (CV) (and his own website) - to show that he actually was director of worldwide television for USIA :

http://www.annenberg.northwestern.edu/pubs/usfa/

http://www.alvinsnyder.com/

Understandable science 17:41 , 7 september, 2009

photo on page

it states in the article thaty the plane had engine power and that the crash was due to loss of contorl to the flight surfaces. why does the photo show engines on fire when it was shot at with radar missles wich would have not struck the engines and exploded 50 meteres behind the plane wich is another 50 meteres to the engines. i think we should have a new picture put up.Firl21 (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a new picture should be put up. It just shows the power and fixity of images on our mind and thinking. And how we carry with us "former knowledges" that the present read of facts do not support. Bert Schlossberg

Well, I see that new picture is up - and it is good one! Bert Schlossberg

Alternative theories

In the context "Flight 007 has been the subject of ongoing controversy and has spawned a number of conspiracy theories, XXXX as a result of Cold War disinformation campaigns..." why is "arguably" considered "editorial" while "primarily" is considered NPOV?? The controversy has in fact continued since the end of the Cold War. Furthermore, I think it is hardly neutral to dismiss Time magazine, Airways magazine, and numerous other publications as merely "Cold War disinformation campaigns". They may well have been wrong, but that is not the same as being mouthpieces of Moscow. Finally, the sentence leaves itself open to endless edits and additions (which has already happened). Would it not be better to stick to the bare bones of the issue and not "editorialise" at all about the reasons for the controversy. I mean, the deaths of numerous civilians in unexplained circumstances - isn't that controversial enough???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Arguably" implies that it's the editor (i.e. you) who is making the argument - so this is blatant, unreferenced synthesis at worst, or weasel terminology at best. Suggest you find some references rather than try to construct your own argument in the article. PS: The wording does not suggest that the controversy ended with the Cold War, but rather that it is rooted in it.Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've totally missed the point. I am not making the argument at all. As I indicated above, I think the entire introductory sentence is far from NPOV and ideally should be replaced, but the phrase "primarily as a result of Cold War disinformation campaigns" just has to go. "Primarily"! This states that without a doubt the shooting down of a civilian aircraft wouldn't attract controversy if not for these "disinformation campaigns". Note that it refers to "disinformation campaigns", not just the Cold War context. Which is palpably absurd. "Arguably" at least states that some have argued (as cited presumably). Another problem is that after this imperious "primarily" a number of other supposed causes have been tacked on, which probably will continue indefinitely, sucking any meaning from the word "primarily". But the lack of neutrality is the main problem. While you've got your nose in the Wikipedia rule book why don't you look up "NPOV". And better still actually read the text!--Jack Upland (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the wording could be improved, but "arguably" is not terminology of an encyclopedia. Suggest that to avoid edit warring, any new wording is hammered out here first before being made to the article, that you supply references rather than use weasel phrases like "some have argued". Socrates2008 (Talk)

I see your point about "arguably", but I don't think you're really grasping the issue. Why should I provide references for something I disagree with??? I don't we actually need to explain the cause of the controversy or "conspiracy theories". The reader can work that out by reading the article. Nor do we need to reiterate the Cold War context or the black box issue. I would propose the sentence be shortened to: "Flight 007 has been the subject of ongoing controversy and has spawned a number of conspiracy theories.". Then we can go on with the details.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC0

The Cold War context is very important - e.g. the Soviets were the first to make accusations that the flight had a military purpose. The rift also effectively precluded a proper investigation, which in turn fuelled and spawned a number of theories. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cold War context is obvious from the article. Citing it here is unnecessarily - accept that it vaguely undermines what follows. But the sentence actually says "Cold War disinformation campaigns" - that's a very much stronger allegation. And one that the source given (Pry, p 31) doesn't support! Then the sentence loses its way, ending up talking about surveillance aircraft, implying the "conspiracy theories" are valid. It really is a sentence "made by a committee" which no individual could endorse in its entirety, but which puts forward a number of points of view, none of which seem to well supported. It really should be neutralised.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know I was a committee :-). Anyway, the sentence you are having difficulty with is merely intended as an introduction to the various conspiracy theories, before launching directly into the first one. Have added a better ref. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're not a committee. Maybe you're just confused. I would have thought the deviation of the plane should be added as a reason for the theories.

And I still don't see why tacitly accusing the numerous American "conspiracy theorists" of being dupes of Soviet "disinformation" and "propaganda" is neutral. Perhaps if I type WP:NPOV you might get the point.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I am confused about is your constant picking at the intro when you can simply add a paragraph, with references, to cover any theory that you feel needs expansion. I also don't see why you're waving the NPOV flag, because although no-one is stopping you making a contribution, you seem to feel more comfortable with criticism.

PS: The attribution of disinformation and and/or conspiracy to only one side is your own misinterpretation - suggest you re-read the intro with an NPOV instead of assuming that any of these was unilateral. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, anything I do will be reverted. If it was up to me I would simply shorten the introductory sentence as outlined previously. Adding another para elsewhere won't change an introductory sentence that is biased and/or confused. As most of the "conspiracy theories" listed are critical of the US Government I don't see how they could be said to be due to US Cold War disinformation or propaganda!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as previously discussed, the only bias you've highlighted is your own. There is nothing in the section intro to suggest that the conspiracy theories are critical of the US government only (See Bert Schlossberg's theory for example, which is particularly critical of the Soviet government). The information you deleted is neutral and meets the verifiability requirement with no less than three citations. Lastly, the {{fact}} tag you added appears pointed, as the reference was already present at the end of the sentence you tagged. As before, you're still not actually making any contribution to the article, just deleting, criticising and tagging it - something that is now becoming rather disruptive. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think the sentence is your private property. First, you advise me to discuss rather than edit, then suggest I contribute rather than discuss, then you condemn me for doing both! I do not intend to engage in an edit war, but will respond to your criticism for the future reference of other editors.

How can calling an opinion a “conspiracy theory” that’s “rooted in” “disinformation and propaganda” be construed as neutral? It doesn’t matter if you believe this is US Government disinformation and propaganda! Which I doubt! Even in the case to Schlossberg!

You boast that this contention has “no less than three citations”. The only one I can check (Pry) is irrelevant. It’s simply dishonest to keep it there. And Pearson is one of the theorists being maligned. So presumably (?) this is the opinion of Young. If so, it should be treated as such, not used as an introduction.

There is no need for you to disrupt your quiet self-contemplation by responding.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship is not contributing to the article, especially when this is based on your unfounded POV that the words "disinformation" and "propaganda" somehow infer one-sided fault on the part of the USA. Now here's the catch: BOTH counties sowed propaganda and disinformation about this Cold War incident.
PS: Here are those three "dishonest" citations you seem to have trouble reviewing (Google is your friend):
  • [117] (last paragraph on p. 382)
  • [118] (paragraph 1 on p. 31)
  • [119]

Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't connect to anything I've said. As for the citations, Pry refers to "KGB disinformation" about Andropov being a "closet liberal". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've just searched for the words "disinformation" in the books without reading the context! I rest my case.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, you're wrong - the keyword search was for your benefit as you claimed the citations were "dishonest". Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I rest my case. But as a postscript, I query whether the Knight encyclopedia is a reliable source. It states that Gollin and Allardyce do not suggest a conspiracy involving US intelligence. In fact, as cited, they do.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Swedish broadcast edit

I reverted Swedish broadcast of 1983 edits (Timeline of Flight and Transcripts intro). Osipovich himself in his 1996 New York Times interview reversed himself and admitted that he had known that the aircraft was a passsenger plane and that it was a Boeing 747 which he knew by the double row of lights, and that he had not fired tracer rounds at or in the direction of KAL 007. He maintained that he thought the 747 was on an intelligence mission, had reported to ground controller (Titovnin) that it had blinking lights and had not reported that it was a Boeing 747, thinking that the description of it would have indicated a transport and would have been sufficient. From the transcript of communication between Lt. Col. Maistrenko and Lt. Col.Titovnin, it was not sufficient.


From http://www.conservapedia.com/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007#The_Osipovich.E2.80.93Air_Controller_KAL_007_Identity_miscommunication

"I knew this was a civilian plane"

Until 1996, there had been a controversy concerning the identity of KAL 007 by the Soviets as a civilian passenger plane, rather than a U.S. RC-135 Reconnaissance plane. But that ended with the acknowledgment of Gennadie Osipovich, the SU-15 Interceptor pilot, that he indeed knew he was shooting down a civilian passenger plane and that he did see its navigation lights blinking.

"From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane,....'I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing,' he said. 'I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use.(New York Times, Dec. 9, 1996).

At 18:26 GMT two air-to-air missiles from an Su-15 Flagon piloted by Major Gennadi Osipovich were fired at the jumbo jet[4], causing it to spiral down from 35,000 feet and after a 12 minute descent crash into the sea near Moneron Island.


The Osipovich–Air Controller KAL 007 Identity miscommunication

In his September 9, 1996 interview Osipovich stated that he knew that it was a civilian Boeing from the double rows of windows. He told ground controllers that there were blinking lights, which he believed should have alerted them to the fact that the plane was a transport. But he did not tell them that the aircraft was specifically a Boeing 747. Also clear, is that KAL 007's blinking navigational lights were also not communicated upward:

"From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane, he said. 'I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing,' he said. 'I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use.'... Osipovich also revealed that in the pressure of the moment, he did not provide a full description of the intruder to Soviet ground controllers. 'I did not tell the ground that it was a Boeing-type plane,' he recalled. 'They did not ask me.' He did, however, tell Soviet ground controllers that the plane had blinking lights on, which he says was an indication that it could be a transport plane." That the omission of the identity of KAL 007 as a Boeing by Osipovich is confirmed by ground personnel to the Combat controller, Lt. Col. Titovnin:

Titovnin: The commander has given orders that if the border is violated—destroy [the target]. Lt. Col. Maistrenko: ...May [be] a passenger [aircraft]. All necessary steps must be taken to identify it. Titovnin: Identification measures are being taken, but the pilot cannot see. It’s dark. Even now it’s still dark. Maistrenko: Well, okay. The task is correct. If there are no lights—it cannot be a passenger [aircraft]. 98.170.236.50 (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg[reply]

Bert, thanks for this - I agree with your summary. Please bear in mind that Conservapedia does not meet the WP:NPOV or WP:V requirements of Wikipeda. Also, given that you wrote most (all?) of the Conservapedia article, citing it here would be a self reference. Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bert, Socrates and everyone else !! Bert , please keep in mind, that your timeline of transmissions might not be complete, there are large intervals between some of the transmitting, and you can not be sure that all transmission is included in your conservapedia article. For instance Osipovich shoots 243 rounds of cannon shells - where is that on the transcription ?? And were they warning shots or shots at the KAL 007 ? I don´t mind that you undo the swedish broadcasting from 1983, I have no shares of interest in this matter - however the broadcasting still exists in the archives of the national television of Sweden. It is only less than one minut transmission from the fighter pilot - nowhere does it indicate that the fighter pilot identified the airplane as a passenger flight ( perhaps the broadcasting was edited by the swedes - I don´t know), but it does mention that the fighter is flying ahead of the airplane (flashing warninglights) and later fires his machineguns as a warning. If the fighterpilot later changed his version in an interview (on your own blog... hmm,hmm....) , then apparently he changed his version once more in later interviews , where he does state that he fired rounds from his machinegun : Here is an interview from Discovery Channel : Unsolved History, KAL 007 :

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/133157

In the same program there is a few seconds of the original transmission from the fighter pilot - he says "flying ahead of target" in russian !! Perhaps you should buy this program from Discovery Channel - it is available on DVD.

Yes,he did fly ahead, and in passing knew that KAL 007 was a passenger 747. That is when he reported to his ground controller that he would try a missile (instead of the canons), and then he dropped behind.Bert Schlossberg

All the best to all here on Wiki. Greetings from Understandable science 17:04, 6. september 2009.

I found the part from Discovery Channel, Unsolved History, KAL 007 :

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/133163&mvpageno=1

With the original transmission from the russian fighter pilot: " I am going around it " ...."I am already moving IN FRONT of the target" ...... so the russian fighter according to this , did fly ahead of the KAL 007. No need to buy the DVD after all . Understandable science 17:41 , 6 september, 2009.

State maps changed

The following i know to be true from the documentation that I have. I won't edit it in as I do not know whether this has been published in acceptable literature. Perhaps one of you would know:

Sakhalin Island had been occupied by the Soviets just in the North. Two weeks before the end of World War ll, the Soviets routed Japan from the South. U.S. State department maps had always had a line (50 degrees)of demarcation between North and South - until KAL 007. Then no more. Why? From State Dapartment Watch - "For decades through the mid-1980s the State Department always marked maps of Sakhalin Island with a dividing line at 50 degrees north noting that the Soviet Union occupied it but was not sovereign. In September 1983, when the Soviets shot down the Korean airliner KAL007 over southern Sakhalin Island, the State Department removed the dividing line and notation on the map, lending legitimacy to the Soviet excuse of shooting down a civilian airplane in its "sovereign" airspace````Bert Schlossberg

Hi Bert - what documentation would that be? Cheers Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/SoSakhalinGiveaway.htm The map, progesion of documents, and the Treaty of San Francisco have a marked bearing on KAL 007 matters. State Department Watch has its main concern with a number of Islands, including Wrangel, and not primarily on Sakhalin. But someone might have published more on the connection to Sakhalin and KAL 007 Bert Schlossberg

Notes

Unless anyone has severe objections (supported by good reasons), I am planning on deleting note # 6, which currently says:

"^ INS mode, while accurate to within a mile, is not accurate enough for take-off and landing. HEADING mode is typically used during take-off and landing, as runways are by convention aligned on a magnetic heading. (Degani, 2001)"

My reason for deleting is that is a very confusing statement, with the latter part not being true at all. The autopilot heading mode is not used to make approaches and landings, nor for takeoff. When the AP heading mode is used to vector to intercept the final approach course of the typical ILS approach, the autopilot is armed to capture that final approach localizer and fly it inbound to the runway with the ILS mode of the AP, not the heading mode. It would be both dangerous and illegal to try and use the AP heading mode to make a landing. And, for takeoff, the autopilot is not allowed to be on at all, so it would be impossible to be using the AP heading mode for takeoff. I could find nothing in the Degani chapter 4, where he discusses the functions of the AP modes, to support that incomprehensible statement of note # 6. Degani did not say anything like that, so the citation is worthless. EditorASC (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning shots/ Tracer rounds

"eyewitness" report

I include this report here, though it is the wrong place. For some reason, my edits to this page do not appear at the end. Can anyone helop me? We shall see if they appear here.BertSchlossberg I have included this report, which is not in effect an eyewitness report as the informer did not see KAL 007, because it is one of the puzzling reports that generally is accepted (except by Brun and a few others). The informant heard a sound and then saw a flash. As Brun points out, the plane was presumably very far away (low on the horizon). What should have arrived to his senses first was not the sound but the flash, light traveling much faster than sound.Bert Schlossberg



If the question is whether or not Osipovich fired warning shots - No evidence of this in the transcripts which are a part of ICAO report. Also no evidence of awareness of shots of any kind (crew reaction) in the KAL 007 CVR tapes. In a number of places Osipovich maintains that he did fire warning shots. In both Osipovich's interview and in the Nov. 28 1983 memo of General Makarov, published in 1992 by Izvestia, there is a clear denial of TRACER rounds that could have been seen by the the crew of KAL 007. That and no confirmation that the interceptor pilot had ever tried to contact KAL 007 on emergency frequency (which would have been picked up by the CVR) are the reasons that Makarov gives for his recommendation that the Black Box remain concealed from the West. Bert Schlossberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.236.50 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F316821284