Bruce, if you have been paying attention for the past eight years or so, then you know where you can find the answers to your questions.  They have been answered numerous times here by a number of people, including myself.

You told me once that you were an "investigative reporter".  So you should be overqualified for the simple task of reading some of the threads here.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Bruce, if you have been paying attention for the past eight years or so, then you know where you can find the answers to your questions.  They have been answered numerous times here by a number of people, including myself.

You told me once that you were an "investigative reporter".  So you should be overqualified for the simple task of reading some of the threads here.

So I gather you are not going to answer my questions about ground observations, pilot statements, and other documentation. Instead, you mock me and make provocative statements suggesting that I go looking through the records so that you don't have to actually cite the people and documents that you previously claimed verify your Mandalay-Canby Intersect Flight Path.

Is that correct?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Bruce, if you have been paying attention for the past eight years or so, then you know where you can find the answers to your questions.  They have been answered numerous times here by a number of people, including myself.

You told me once that you were an "investigative reporter".  So you should be overqualified for the simple task of reading some of the threads here.

So I gather you are not going to answer my questions about ground observations, pilot statements, and other documentation. Instead, you mock me and make provocative statements suggesting that I go looking through the records so that you don't have to actually cite the people and documents that you previously claimed verify your Mandalay-Canby Intersect Flight Path.

Is that correct?

Give it a rest Achilles!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No.

Your response is vague, non-specific, and unsatisfying. In fact, it's a dodge.

If you are going to claim multiple sources verify your hypothesis then you should be able to back it up upon demand.

Bruce, I do give the sources, reasoning, etc..  But I am damned tired of having to explain the same thing to YOU repeatedly.  Other people seem to understand it with the first explanation.  So no more "on demand" explanations.  You are going to have to read the explanations yourself and they are already on this site.

And I am not on "The Road to Mandalay".  It's the Malay to Canby Intersections flight path.

... A visit to Mandalay is incomplete without a visit to Mahamuni Pagoda. ...

I about cracked up the first time I read that post by Bruce. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Bruce,

Assuming that the airliner flew direct from the Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection, it would never be more than eight miles west of the centerline of V-23 anywhere between those two points.  So the airliner, and placard as well, would be within the lateral limits of V-23 for a considerable part of that diversion.

Good to know.

Are answers to my others questions coming any time soon? Ground Obs, pilot testimony, etc...

Just askin'.

Bruce, if you have been paying attention for the past eight years or so, then you know where you can find the answers to your questions.  They have been answered numerous times here by a number of people, including myself.

You told me once that you were an "investigative reporter".  So you should be overqualified for the simple task of reading some of the threads here.

So... Georger's question still stands, has anyone seen this map before?

So... Georger's question still stands, has anyone seen this map before?