









Group: Newbie

Posts: 2

Joined: 27-June 07

Member No.: 1,267









Some thoughts:



Mr. Anderson, if legit, obviously holds an important piece. For his own safety, he should be sworn and deposed ASAP, with notarized copies of the depo made and distributed beyond hope of any but the most determined destruction. Keep in mind that eyewitness evidence of this kind is admissible in a court of law and, as such, could be exceedingly dangerous in the right (or, from the perps point of view, wrong,) circumstances.



People with skills and access need to check out Mr. Andersons claims:



Does/did the company he claims to work/have worked for actually exist?

Were one or more Boeing 757 aircraft actually worked on by this company during the time-frame claimed?

Do records of anomalies observed confirm any part of Mr. Andersons story?

Was/is there an engineer by the name he gives working for the company at the time he claims?



{Comment: The engineer conducting tests as described, using obviously highly proprietary/classified software, was almost certainly at least an asset if not a professional agent of at least one Agency. As such, on an operation of the kind in hand, he would be highly likely to have disappeared without a trace, a la Vreeland. Also, lack of any recorded anomalies corresponding to Mr. Andersons account would not, of themselves, necessarily discredit his claims, given the almost-certain scrubbing of data under the claimed circumstances.}



Assuming he remembers the identity of the customer, can he also offer guidance as to how we might learn the tail number of the aircraft, date(s) of service, and the names of any other participating personnel, with special emphasis on management-level people. It would be particularly useful to talk with any technicians who actually inspected the aircraft, looking for the lockout circuitry.



{Comment: As an ex-electroniker and QC engineer as well as somebody with at least a modicum of common sense, I feel fairly sure of several things:



Mission-critical hardware of the sort involved here will certainly have been subjected to a highly classified, thorough design review overseen, if not conducted, by an Agency, or elements of an Agency, of the U.S. Govt.



An important feature of the design is likely to have been ability to be hidden in plain sight, i.e. appearing to be an entirely legitimate, fully specified (and hence fully inspectable) element of the on-board avionics suite. (Since Im neither an avionics tech nor an inspector, Ive no way of knowing whether inspections go down to the level of actually counting the number of wires in cables and verifying their function, but short of this there seems to be no reason why an autopilot power lock-in relay and associated computer interface couldnt be tucked into a convenient black box whose other functions are completely bona fide.)



Actual hardware manufacture is likely to have been handled, on a sub-contract basis, by an Agency cut-out, i.e. a wholly-controlled operation possibly set up exclusively to support this and related activities. This would also have been true of the requisite back-door control software; control access code would only be revealed by a detailed source-code review conducted by people not privy to the full real functions of the package  an eventuality most unlikely to unfold absent some major failure review.



Given the above, I see no reason why any Boeing personnel would necessarily have had to be knowingly involved; incoming avionics black boxes would have been inspected as to specified physical parameters, subjected to specified environmental and functional testing, installed in airframes, inspected, function-tested and duly certified. The mission-required extra wiring might have been labeled spare or some other benign term, hence never function-tested. Control software would have been function-tested per spec.  any hidden capabilities would almost certainly have escaped notice.



This, however, brings us to the one truly bizarre feature of this whole scenario: why on earth would the absolutely-critical function-testing of the remote-control, and especially the lockout, capabilities of this hardware/software system have been carried out in such a semi-public manner? Two plausible explanations come to mind:



1. Mr. Andersons account is entirely or substantially bogus, and none of the foregoing has any meaning, at least in the present context.



2. The exposure was quite deliberate, intended to plant a breadcrumb to be followed up at some future time by knowledgeable people in a position to do so. (The Agencies are NOT monolithic; both deliberate sabotage of illicit operations and their later exposure have occurred from within  thank God.)



Hope this proves of some use  good hunting!