From the Editor's Desk:
November 7, 1997Less than a month and a half ago, Ian Goddard decided he had had enough. He was giving up Conspiracy Inquiry to pursue a more peaceful, personally fulfilling life in the liberal arts. More than a year of intense study, debate, and writing had not only produced an unbelievable body of work from a rookie amateur - enough to gain considerable world-wide attention - but it had also garnered plenty of undesirable attention from pro- (or intra-) government hacks and media mavens who did not like the message he carried. Nonetheless, Goddard's work was impeccable, and while his conclusions were often contested, they were rarely challenged intellectually.
The battle had its casualties, peace and tranquility in Goddard's life. He was forever answering charges that came at him from all sides, and though he was very successful, it did not take long for his enthusiasm for the battle to wear out. Hence, his retirement. For a while, he allowed his major works to be featured in Deep Times, even after he stopped producing them. But he tired of the continued abuse he took in the Internet newsgroups and in the media, so ultimately, he asked that these be taken down as well. His life had been turned upside down by this controversy, and it had become clear to him that he was a mouse fighting a gorilla. This is what made his efforts seem "reckless" and "a mistake" to him. Not his actual reporting.
In the course of all of this, Ian began to have some doubts as to the certainty of his conclusion that the plane crash was the result of a Navy Missile. Though he had previously considered the possibility of a terrorist missile, particularly a "Stinger", he was initially satisfied that the Stinger did not pack the punch necessary to inflict the type of "Through-and-Through" damage done to the fuselage of the plane. But now in retrospect, he was beginning to doubt his own qualifications to draw firm conclusions in regard to this dispute. These doubts bothered him somewhat, and they served to reinforce his decision to retire from the area of inquiry.
This was Ian Goddard's state of mind when he was approached by a CNN reporter who wanted to know why Ian was getting out of the TWA inquiry. There is a good chance that someone at CNN responsible for Christine Negroni making that call - either directly or indirectly - knew this before she called. So, when approached, Ian felt this might be a good opportunity for closure, and to make amends with those in the Navy he wrongly accused - if any. (his words)
Ian Goddard acted in good faith - always. He should have known that the sharks in the media and government would not reconcile with him on the same terms. He had made the case quite convincingly for their lack of character in his own writings. But Ian god caught with his guard down.
The CNN report was not factually wrong in what they said directly. Tucked into the middle of the third from the last paragraph of the article is the statement, "he did not retract any of his charges that a Navy missile brought down the 747." But their placement, emphasis, and selective exclusion of the qualifiers ("IF ANY") and the addendum ("AND THEY PROBABLY DESERVED IT") to his statement about wanting to encourage distrust of government resulted in a twisted gestalt, and leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Ian Goddard did NOT use any good judgement in his reports, and that he deliberately fabricated his reports and conclusions, and that he was now recanting everything he did and said. Read it for yourself. It is very, very disturbing. But this impression is a false one. I for one, do not believe it was an accident.
No wonder the other parties CNN interviewed were hopping mad. They were probably primed with the same CNN practice of selective and partial quotes. At least that is probably what happened with Joe Lychner, who lost his wife and two daughters in the crash. No doubt, Mr. Lychner wants the truth about this event, no matter what it may be. CNN's use of him to reinforce their misrepresentation of Goddard's position is sickening, and an indication of the fact that no cellar is too deep for the Government-Media complex to wallow in.
NTSB spokesman, Peter Goelz, may not have needed any priming from CNN, though. Though I have little doubt that most, if not all NTSB investigators initially wanted to do a top-notch job on this investigation, pursuing the truth, no matter where it would lead, by now all bureaucrats know on which side their bread is buttered. Goelz went even further than CNN. Though he stopped short of mentioning Ian Goddard by name, the interview was in the context of Ian Goddard's "Apology", and so the reasonable implication would be that what he says applies to Goddard. Goelz said:
"... interesting phenomena on how Internet technobabble, and , frankly, basically, lies, seep into the mainstream media, and that also causes the problem, because then the FBI and the NTSB have to spend time responding to what have been basically groundless accusations from day one."
A casual observer could easily be left with the impression that Goddard was some sort of borderline anti-social delinquent with a keyboard, out to cause mischief and mayhem. Nothing could be further from the truth. Goddard routinely issued corrections to his reports, no matter how small or how large the errors. I have now known Goddard for over a year, and my impression of him is that he is a true gentleman, with a genuine concern for his fellow human beings, and in fact for all sentient beings. This is perfectly illustrated by his decision to stop pursuing the political aspect of this tragedy, and turn to the humanitarian side.
But the same technique could be applied to this article as CNN applied to Ian's statement to create a far different impression. After all, I:
- Called Goddard an "rookie amateur"
- Said he didn't keep his word (deciding not to feature his work on my site was not really that, but could be portrayed that way.)
- Said that "the CNN report was not factually wrong."
- Said I could understand why those interviewed by CNN would be angry.
- said, "Goddard was some sort of borderline anti-social delinquent with a keyboard, out to cause mischief with a mayhem"
"They" could have had Ian Goddard out of the case, and his articles off the Internet, if they had just been fair in this one report. But they just didn't know when to leave well enough alone. So the articles are back. Read them and decide for yourself if his work and others like it have been "groundless from day one".
.David H. Stern, M.D.
Editor, Deep Times