Endless point and eternal counterpoint.
Flog away all you like “V”, it can little harm now. There is a ‘hard-line’ school of thought emerging to fill the void, which although unpleasant, must be considered. The lines of argument go something like this:-
This was, in one form or another, a deliberate, planned, criminal act.
A statement which needs detail; by whom and why, to what end? Many options to choose from; political, financial, lunacy; malice, the entire gamut of ‘criminal’ options available; take your pick. If and I do mean if, this was a deliberate act, then it must be to some purpose. That purpose would need to be communicated; plain robbery under arms does not compute; - unless there was something of real value to make the huge effort worthwhile on board the aircraft. Even if the sole purpose was to dispose of the ‘egg-heads’ and a patent, there are much simpler, legal ways of disposing of surplus personnel. I believe we can rule out ‘theft’; which takes us back to ‘communication’ in some form. Yet there is no record of any – bar ‘routine’ comms; before radio darkness.
So, the ‘why’ of it emerges, begging answers. One line of discussion supports the theory that some form of 9/11 type threat was made for political purposes. Buildings threatened if demands were not met etc. This line of discussion says that the aircraft was simply shot down to prevent the conclusion and avoid agreeing to the demands. A cover up would be necessary of course, but it could be done. Personally, I can’t agree with this theory, but it has a certain logic and can be ‘loosely’ aligned with known fact.
So, the ‘why’ of it emerges, begging answers. Another line of argument supports the theory of ‘Electronic Terrorism’ – the aircraft hi-jacked itself. Again, not too fanciful and certainly ‘do-able’ , but to what end? Ransom would work, prisoner release would work, political statement would fit; lots of options there for the connoisseur. Whatever the motivation, supporters of the theory hold to the notion that somehow, it all went wrong and the aircraft disappeared as the hacked systems failed to perform as programmed.
The point of this ramble is that in the absence of ‘logical’ explanation to fit with the few ‘known’ facts, those few facts can be cobbled into reasonable lines of discussion. Me? I stick to my ‘the aliens took it’ line; works a treat when folk ask me about ‘the mystery’; I get a few odd looks, but mostly, they leave me alone to enjoy my ale in peace without having to get into damn fool questions and half baked answers. Cheers ET.
Toot toot.
Flog away all you like “V”, it can little harm now. There is a ‘hard-line’ school of thought emerging to fill the void, which although unpleasant, must be considered. The lines of argument go something like this:-
This was, in one form or another, a deliberate, planned, criminal act.
A statement which needs detail; by whom and why, to what end? Many options to choose from; political, financial, lunacy; malice, the entire gamut of ‘criminal’ options available; take your pick. If and I do mean if, this was a deliberate act, then it must be to some purpose. That purpose would need to be communicated; plain robbery under arms does not compute; - unless there was something of real value to make the huge effort worthwhile on board the aircraft. Even if the sole purpose was to dispose of the ‘egg-heads’ and a patent, there are much simpler, legal ways of disposing of surplus personnel. I believe we can rule out ‘theft’; which takes us back to ‘communication’ in some form. Yet there is no record of any – bar ‘routine’ comms; before radio darkness.
So, the ‘why’ of it emerges, begging answers. One line of discussion supports the theory that some form of 9/11 type threat was made for political purposes. Buildings threatened if demands were not met etc. This line of discussion says that the aircraft was simply shot down to prevent the conclusion and avoid agreeing to the demands. A cover up would be necessary of course, but it could be done. Personally, I can’t agree with this theory, but it has a certain logic and can be ‘loosely’ aligned with known fact.
So, the ‘why’ of it emerges, begging answers. Another line of argument supports the theory of ‘Electronic Terrorism’ – the aircraft hi-jacked itself. Again, not too fanciful and certainly ‘do-able’ , but to what end? Ransom would work, prisoner release would work, political statement would fit; lots of options there for the connoisseur. Whatever the motivation, supporters of the theory hold to the notion that somehow, it all went wrong and the aircraft disappeared as the hacked systems failed to perform as programmed.
The point of this ramble is that in the absence of ‘logical’ explanation to fit with the few ‘known’ facts, those few facts can be cobbled into reasonable lines of discussion. Me? I stick to my ‘the aliens took it’ line; works a treat when folk ask me about ‘the mystery’; I get a few odd looks, but mostly, they leave me alone to enjoy my ale in peace without having to get into damn fool questions and half baked answers. Cheers ET.
Toot toot.