On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 Kevin Reilly wrote:
>That's the MECHANISM by which the aircraft was brought down (or at least
>the strongest candidate so far seen). In no way does that negate the
>possibility of a pre-faked crash site based on foreknowledge of that
>event.
Just as an aside to this, for what it's worth my own strongest objection
to the idea of a faked crash site is simply the location. If I wanted to
fake the wreckage of a Sydney-LA flight I'd put it somewhere NE of Fiji,
not SW of Bali. The location of the wreck is inexplicable in terms of
the flight plan (and it's odd that in the brief clips we've seen so far
the media don't seem to be bothered by that).
My problem with the alternative explanation -- that the plane at the
bottom of the Indian Ocean genuinely is Flight 815 (or at least *a*
Flight 815) -- is that it raises all of those alternate timeline issues
and I'm really not ready to deal with all that yet. In any other show,
yes, but LOST already gives me enough headaches.
Interestingly, assuming Seth Norris was at least partially telling the
truth and that 815 flew for six hours before doing a 180 and flying for
a further two hours, the crash site in the Sunda Trench is pretty damned
close to where you'd expect it to be, in terms of distance from Sydney.
But only if they were flying in completely the wrong direction for
reasons unknown.
Head's aching again.
Kev
__________________________________________________________________________
"Mrs. Jones has not had any clothes for two years and has been visited
regularly by the clergy." Welfare claim
ChrisRiley
thinbluemime
