Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007/Archive 2

Spurious Transcript

Where id it come from? The transcript of the Soviet Gropund Control and the pilot Osponovich, responsible for the attacks. It reads like a bad piece of script from a Mel Brooks take-off of a Steven Segal rip-off of a Moscowood knock-off of Top Gun. Seriosuly though, did somebody just make that up or is that an actual official release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.171.254.65 (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's and actual official release. You will notice, that the pilot, Osipovich's words have minute and second, while Titovnin's words do not have these. Ospiovich's words comes from the real time NSA electronic intercept which was made public and played before the U.N. This was only the second time that a NSA electronic intercept of a shootdown was made public. But this was only of the interceptor part of the shootdown. Then in 1992 the Russian Federation supplied the ground Combat Controller (Titovnin) side of the shootdown. It fit perfectly, and thus we have the full shootdown sequence. It is customary now to provide both transcripts giving the full sequence together. These transcripts have been released in the ICAO report of '93 - "Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation Regarding the Shootdown of Korean Airline Boeing 747 (Flight KE007)on 31 Aug. 1983. Information Paper no.1. United Nations Security Council-139 Session, 1993, p.93,95,96" The ground portion is found in the above in the section, "Transcript of Communications. USSR Air Defence Command Centres on Sakhalin Island" of Information Paper 1.

The problem in the presentation of much of the transcript material is that it is so dramatic, that it does sound like a movie script. I have noted this in the Introduction to my book, if not in the words you have used, then in the same sense, "All of this, and more, may create in us by the realism and by the excitement, the sense and suspicion that all is staged. That it is fiction. That it is a movie script for somebody of the caliber of, say, Steven Spielberg, for a Shindler's List or Saving Private Ryan level of cinematic experience. But it is not, It all happened in real life and it is documented."Bert Schlossberg (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an added note, and I say this for the general knowledge for whoever is reading, what is is left out of the transcript that would make it more "mundane" and more readily "believeable" are the extraneous ground controller requests and the pilots responses. These are usually concerned with coordinates for vectoring and remaining fuel read outs. If these were left in the transcript and attention is given to the times, which some time allow for the maneuvers undertaken, it will seem more "real" and less like a movie.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

Thought I'd nominate it for Good status, it seems to meet all the requirements. Anynobody 23:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? This article is horrible. It's filled with unexplained US military jargon, and has strange punctuation and grammar in the timeline section. It takes too much "interpretation" to be understood. Perhaps someone would be willing to start re-writing this? It's too tall an order for me. 130.15.114.24 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

My comments:

• "269 passengers and crew, including US congressman Lawrence McDonald were aboard KAL 007, there were no survivors." - second comma should be a semi-colon I would think.
• "...test it's military..." - grammar.
• Great drawing, but it should be made clear that it is a drawing of KAL007, not real picture.
• Slightly confusing with "KAL 007" & "KE007" in lead with "HL7442, the KAL 747 lost during Flight 007" in infobox.
• "Cause Shoot down" - should that be shot down?
  • Actually, "shootdown" is the noun form and is technically correct. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Cool, that's why I asked the question. Thanks for clearing that up for me. The Rambling Man 16:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Citations need be placed in accordance with WP:CITE (e.g. ref [1] needs to be moved outside of parentheses).
• When stating "...31 August..." in flight information - add a year to it for context.
• No citations for Flight information section other than the the registration.
• Drawing of the Sukhoi, why not use a photograph?
• "Korean Air Flight 007" or "Korean Air Lines Flight 007" or "KAL 007" - consistency.
• "...was closed after the accident on September 2." - which September 2? Which accident - the shooting of the airliner?
• Wikilink DC-8.
• Write out the similar incidents as prose, not just a list.
• Link 727 and 707 to the correct pages.
• "Flight Data Recorder", "Cockpit Voice Recorder" - why capitalised?
• No citation for conspiracy theory section. It needs expanding as well - the daughter article is heavily tagged with POV issues, lack of citations, poor quality, so this article should not rely on the daughter article.
• Popular culture section needs to be prosed. Also, it needs citation.
• Are any of the Other references actually used in the article? If so they should be appropriately cited.
• Cut down external links per WP:EL.

So I'm afraid with so many issues I'll have to fail this article for the time being. Please do fix these issues and re-nominate in the future. All the best. The Rambling Man 11:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article states "The aircraft had entered into Soviet airspace." That is still a subject of controversy and has not been conclusively proven.

Cold War effects and the Aftermath

I find it odd that there is no mention of the Cold War in this article, even though it was a significant point of tension in the Cold War. The event is linked to and cited as a precipitating factor of Able Archer 83, yet the KAL007 article itself fails to offer even the slightest hint that the shootdown resulted in international, public, and military tensions. Nominating the article for GA review seems ridiculous when the article lacks pertinent historical perspective and placement - specifically, the international aftermath.

It also seems a bit odd that the article does not mention the search or the lack of debris/remains directly. Although the lack of remains sparks numerous conspiracy theories on passenger survival and Soviet coverup, it remains a significant fact in and of itself that there was an unusual lack of debris and remains in the vicinity of the crash site. The lack of remains and debris in addition to the lack of Soviet cooperation significantly contributed to the escalation of international tensions. Woofer99 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with Woofer. The lack of remains is taken up in the sister KAL 007 Conspiracy article but should be part of the main article as it is certainly not in contention, and is just another fact pointing to mysteries involved in the shootdown and aftermath. May I point to this Photo Essay of the search and rescue/ salvage operation and the seaman's comment about the lack of wreckage that they encountered - [1] 89.138.147.180Bert Schlossberg89.138.147.180 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:41, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Apparently "Conspiracy article" has been deleted. I'm not arguing that we need 2 separate articles but the information has to be kept. The lack of wreckage in international waters doesn't support the conspiracy theory of a "Soviet coverup". In fact it indicates the plane was shot down where the Soviet Union said, not where the USA claimed.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What Happened?

What happened to all the passengers and crew? 122.2.98.171 03:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Camille32 11:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They were all killed. Do you mean what happened to their bodies? Anynobody 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It can no longer be maintained that all were killed. I refer you to [2] and [3] 217.132.141.58Bert Schlossberg217.132.141.58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.141.58 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a massive recovery effort by Soviets and locals were given rewards for anything they could pick up of the aircraft. As some of them were fishermen, they dragged the net on the seabed likely picking up a huge rewards. In fact, ships would have been primed and ready anyway for the last fishing season of the year, so they would have been out in full force without any order. The current in this area generally goes north or north west so everything would have traveled through Soviet water before going anywhere else. It was rather easy for Soviets to clean up the area completely. --Revth 10:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Michel Blum makes the point that if KAL 007 had come down in International waters north of Moneron, then the Tsushimo current would have taken the debris northward, as that is the flow direction as noted above. But no debris was found in international waters around Moneron and none anywhere else northwards. But some debris showed up southward on the shores of Hokkaido. This is the reason that Michel believes that KAL 007 came down south of Sakhalin along the coast of Japan, and from there the debris was carried northward until it hits the eastward flow of the Tsushimo branch of the Soya Straits. But there is, indeed, a southerly flowing current that is well known to the both Russian and Japanese scientists, that runs not in international waters but in Soviet territorial waters and this current is west of Sakhalin and east of Moneron. This current flows about 1 NH per hour for the 35 miles from the area of setdown to the tip of Sakhalin and from there flows east to the shores of Hokkaida. Thus the setdown east of Moneron in Soviet territorial waters well explains how debris wound up on Hokkaido (Whereas the setdown in international waters, as Brun maintains, could not explain it). The reports that came in to Israel of a setdown and of survivors also place the setdown in this southerly flowing current to Hokkaido. It should be noted that the Soviets prevented the U.S./Japanese search to enter their territorial waters. Here is the location for the scientific research about that southerly flowing current - http://www.pices.int/publications/scientific_reports/Report12/kantakov_f.pdf 85.250.199.235 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg85.250.199.235 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, there were no bodies reported recovered, although significant amounts of baggage and other debris, in addition to the Flight Recorder, were recovered, leading to the various Conspiracy theories. 67.86.230.187 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

neglected to login to sign the above. Woofer99 19:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Website in External Links section?

Akredecki, do you think that the website could be posted again (it once was but it was taken down) under External Links? It is the only source I know of to view the Soviet military communications appended to the ICAO '93 report, as well as articles, such as from the Deputy Director of Russian Archives of Recent History, etc., that are related to the shootdown of KAL 007. It can be worded in such a way as to alert readers to the fact that commentary and interpretation appears alongside of the transcripts and articles. I say this with the understanding that even as is, the transcripts such as in the Story section are easily distinguishable from my comments, and are valuable in and of themselves. An example of the way it can be listed judiciously in the External Links: "Website of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors - [4] . Transcripts of the shootdown and aftermath with accompanying commentary and interpretation." What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.141.58 (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor POV

I would like to point out that this article says that in a 1996 Washington Post article it was "revealed" that the tapes presented at the U.N. had been edited to present bias. It would be better to say "alledged", "claimed", or "asserted" because so far it is just his word for it. 216.201.12.176 04:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, "his word" is the word of the man who (allegedly!) did it. What more confirmation do you need? What else could you expect?--Jack Upland (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just the point, he alledgely did it! This is simply his word, and other people that were there have disputed this, Jeane Kirkpatrick did in one interview, furthermore he claims that on the one hand he manipulated information and then on the other that he was only given selective information.

At any rate weather or not the tape was doctored has not been established, so far all we have is this mans allegation written in print and very little fallow up, so until we have something more definate it should read "allegedly" or "claimed" to reflect a non-POV article. Otherwise it violates wiki's POV standards.

At any rate I think its interesting you are willing to state as fact what so far amounts to little more than an un-proven allegation. 216.201.48.26 (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I repeat what I said before. What more do you expect? The man himself has confessed. It's a more corroborated fact than most facts in Wikipedia. And your point about manipulated v.s selective information is meaningless hairsplitting. The only way to resolve it would be a verbatim account of the information he received and the information he presented. This would be voluminous and largely unnecessary. The point is he doesn't think he presented a fair account of the facts. Deal with it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Amplification of information in Interception Section

This may be apmplified for a better understanding: "Just prior to being attacked, the 747 had been cruising at an altitude around 35,000 feet. After the missile strike, KAL 007's tail was pushed downward which at the same time lifted its nose causing a brief altitude gain before the aircraft began to descend from 18:26 until..." To this: At 6:15, 11 minutes prior to missile strike, Capt. Chun requested permission from Tokyo controller to ascent from 33,000 ft. to 35,000 ft. At 6:20 permission was granted and KAL 007 began its 3 minute climb to 35,000 ft. As the Jumbo jet climbed, its speed decreased, engine power being diverted from velocity to lift. The Air Combat Controller ordered Maj. Osipovich, the Sukhoi 15 interceptor pilot, to open fire, "805 (interceptor call sign) open fire on target." Osipovich replied, "It should have been earlier,how can I chase it?. I,m already abeam of the target." At 6:22:37, Osipovich reported. "I am dropping back. Now I will try a rocket." At 6:25, the Air Combat Controller again orders Osipovich to destry the target, "Launch!" At 6:26:20, Ospiovich relies, " I have executed the launch", and at 6:26:22, "The target is destroyed."

List of passengers and crew by nationality

Is there a source bearing a list of passengers and crew by nationality? WhisperToMe 04:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found one that gives a full break down, Time said there were something like 61 Americans aboard, and several other nationalities. Anynobody 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Off hand, I have these figures, which represent the most passengers according to nationality in descending order (the full listing is in ICAO '83)- South Korea - 76, the U.S. - 61, Taiwan - 28, Japan - 23, the Philippines - 16. Many other countries are represented with only a few to each country. For passenger names and seating and stories, see [ http://www.rescue007.org/passengers.htm] 85.250.199.235 (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg85.250.199.235 (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy Curse

Since the airplane was from John F. Kennedy International Airport, it was cursed by the famous Kennedy curse, sealing its fate. Pikazilla 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

2nd reference is dead

just to let you know, i attempted to open the link in the second reference (numbered 2...) and was greeted with a page suggesting i tell the referring page, so here i am.

       sorry, make that the sixth link.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.141.13 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 

Major POV problems

The basis of this article is the acceptance of the official US line. Any dissenting view is ignored, marginalised, or dismissed.

• There is no attempt to distinguish between US government claims and established facts.
• The heading "Conspiracy theories" is calculated to denigrate any dispute. Logically we could take the Soviet line as the official version and label the US version as a "conspiracy theory". After all, they claim that Soviet forces deliberately shot down a civilian airline, making no attempt to make radio contact or even force it to land. I have therefore changed this to "Controversy".
• The "conspiracy" page mentioned above seems to have been deleted.
• The details of "conspiracy theories" are conveniently reduced to a Times article and its retraction. Serious problems with the US line are ignored. (For example, the missing remains mentioned above, the discrepancies in the flight path etc.)
• The reference to the doctoring of the Soviet air force intercepts confirms the untruthfulness of the US government, but this is buried in the article, with no connections made to the "conspiracy theories"
• I have deleted the sentence saying that after the release of the black box transcript "mainstream" coverage of the "conspiracy theories" ceased. I don't think there ever was much "mainstream" coverage. But the controversy remains. Last year the American Airways magazine produced a three part article on this. In any case, the transcript raises more questions than it answers and the response of some "mainstream" news services was to say "The Russians still haven't come clean".

To deal with all these issues would require a major overhaul of the article...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

You clearly seem to believe that Time is either not a very strong source or that there are equally reliable sources which discuss the conspiracy aspects. If you have problems with Time, they are the only source that I found which discussed the conspiracy in any detail. If you feel there are sources being ignored, then please link us to them. Anynobody 23:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

To make the changes you are suggesting would butcher the article. One of the main reasons it failed the good article nomination...was because of the unfounded and un-cited claims made in the "conspiracy theories" section.

And as for the doctoring of the Soviet Airforce intercepts...Indeed they show some intent of deception. I'm not trying to attempt to justify it. But the un-edited version hardly paints a different picture. As it only left out the so called "internationally recognized warning symbols" include only bursts of machine-gun fire (already explained as impossible to notice due to the lack of tracers) and the fighter tipping his wings. Which alone can easily go unnoticed. ONE act hardly translates into "internationally recognized warning symbols". Especially when there was NO attempt at radio contact (verified by aircraft and ground monitors monitoring those frequencies)

No major overhaul is needed. As your apparent bias appears to show through in one of your first statements when you say:

"There is no attempt to distinguish between US government claims and established facts."

The problem with that is that the INTERNATIONAL Civil Aviation Administration (read:not U.S.) investigated the incident and generally supported the "US Government Claims" and condemned the Soviet Union's use of force as "a violation of international law" and deplored them for failing to cooperate with ANY other countries in search and rescue efforts (they took control of the crash site and refused entry to US and Japanese Search and rescue teams) and for failing to cooperate with the ICAO investigation by refusing a visit from it's Secretary General, and refusing to provide any information relevant to their investigation. That's all from the INTERNATIONAL report. The basis of this article is the official International line. (not just the U.S.) If there is to be a conspiracy theory section, we should limit it to that which can be supported by (and not overwhelmingly contradicted by) some degree of fact. If you cannot put aside your anti-American or anti-government bias (whichever it may be), you should refrain from making changes to the article . Abalu (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Abalu

I agree that making the mooted changes would "butcher" the article. This is because the article as it stands is clearly biased. The pilot of KAL 007 was a fighter ace, so it seems unconvincing that he failed to notice a MIG fighter was trying to force him down. Just as it is unconvincing to believe that he had strayed into militarily sensitive territory without noticing it. And that the USSR would not contact a plane that had strayed into its territory but wait several hours and then abruptly shoot it down.

If the crash site was indeed in Soviet territory this is in contradiction with the US Government's version. As well as that, I doubt that the US Government would have allowed Soviet operatives to search its territory, so the claim of non-co-operation is again biased.

The Soviet determination of the plane's flightpath matched Japanese radar, not the convenient American version. But I guess you are only interested in "international" approval when it matches the US version. A series of three articles in last year's Airways magazine argued that the International Civil Aviation Authority was biased towards the American position.

Finally, the censorship of anything critical of the US Government is clearly biased. The article as it stands only mentions controversy discussed by a pre-eminent American magazine which is undercut by a subsequent apology. In other words, you are unwilling to face genuine debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss the changes you're proposing, but in order to actually implement them we'd need sources to cite.

• The pilot of KAL 007 was a fighter ace, so it seems unconvincing that he failed to notice a MIG fighter was trying to force him down. Barring a source saying otherwise, you're actually incorrect about assuming he saw the interceptor trying to get his attention. (If he had, surely he'd of mentioned it to the rest of the crew rather than discussing a new place in the airport to change currency.) The 747 didn't have a RWR so a radar lock would've been unnoticed in the cockpit, and since the Flagon wasn't equiped with tracer ammunition, cannon fire at night would be invisible.
• And that the USSR would not contact a plane that had strayed into its territory but wait several hours and then abruptly shoot it down. They did try to intercept KAL 007 when it first entered Soviet airspace, and it had already returned to international airspace before action could be taken. Time talks about how the pressure on Soviet controllers was intensified by the earlier failure to intercept it.
• If the crash site was indeed in Soviet territory this is in contradiction with the US Government's version. There was likely a large field of debris, since pieces would have been coming off the doomed plane as soon as it was hit. The fact that some of it ended up in Soviet waters doesn't seem that unlikely.
• A series of three articles in last year's Airways magazine argued that the International Civil Aviation Authority was biased towards the American position. Could you please provide a link to them?
• Finally, the censorship of anything critical of the US Government is clearly biased. The article as it stands only mentions controversy discussed by a pre-eminent American magazine which is undercut by a subsequent apology. In other words, you are unwilling to face genuine debate. We aren't censoring anything discussed in reliable sources, which all seem to have dismissed the conspiracy theories about KAL 007 being on a spy mission or there being any survivors. Anynobody 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(PS Here's the discussion regarding deletion of the conspiracy page. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories your initial post indicates you are unaware of why it was deleted. I'm including this just so you have all the information, I'm not trying to use it as an argument.) Anynobody 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your points:

• Apparently the "conspiracy" article was deleted because it was unsupported, messy, and should be merged with the existing article. I agree with the last point but this hasn't been done. Rather the manoeuvre has resulted in censorship. The other two points could have been remedied, as happens (hopefully) with other articles.
• This ex-fighter pilot was flying over some of the most military sensitive territory in the world. You may be right that he didn't know, but that does need explaining. It seems incredible.
• It is even more incredible that in the hours that this occurred the Soviet Union did not try to establish radio contact or to intercept with fighters firing traces or waggling their wings. If they did, it is again incredible that a fighter ace wouldn't notice.
• The fact is there was more debris in Soviet territory than outside it, a fact that is implicitly acknowledged by almost everyone. Hence the American version is transparently bogus.
• Time magazine is well known as a conservative American source.
• You claim you will accept cited sources but:
  • You demand weblinks - you don't accept my citation of the recent Airways magazine. (I don't think it's available electronically - many reputable sources aren't.)
  • When you got a linked citation to New York Times you deleted it.

In conclusion your favoured form of argument seems to be to delete and dismiss.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This ex-fighter pilot was flying over some of the most military sensitive territory in the world. You may be right that he didn't know, but that does need explaining. It seems incredible. I agree it does, but connecting that he was an ex fighter pilot to the fact that the flight was off course near where the Soviets tested ballistic missiles would be synthesis unless a source makes the connection in that way too.

It is even more incredible that in the hours that this occurred the Soviet Union did not try to establish radio contact or to intercept with fighters firing traces or waggling their wings. If they did, it is again incredible that a fighter ace wouldn't notice. As the sources said, the interceptors weren't equipped with tracers, so it'd actually be pretty incredible if the ex fighter ace had noticed 30 mm cannon rounds whizzing by in the dark night. (Also I'm pretty sure the sources said that the Su-15 was operating without nav lights as it would in battle conditions, it's hard to see wing waggling in the dark and when the controllers never ordered him to do anything like it anyway.)

The fact is there was more debris in Soviet territory than outside it, a fact that is implicitly acknowledged by almost everyone. Hence the American version is transparently bogus. Where does it say it's implicit that more wreckage fell anywhere? The sources say that due to the proximity of the debris field to Soviet waters, extensive recovery efforts were not able to be undertaken by American/western searchers. I understand where you could think this means more debris fell in Soviet territory, but other possibilities like potential Soviet interference (or another shoot down) were also very likely considered.

You demand weblinks - you don't accept my citation of the recent Airways magazine. (I don't think it's available electronically - many reputable sources aren't.) No, I said ...we'd need sources to cite. and asked Could you please provide a link to them? I'm actually asking for something that can be referenced. As you stated it, A series of three articles in last year's Airways magazine argued that the International Civil Aviation Authority was biased towards the American position. doesn't really work for a citation. It would read like this:
...the International Civil Aviation Authority was biased towards the American position.^[1]
References
^[1] Three articles from Airways magazine, circa 2007. Anynobody 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not demanding Internet sources for everything. None of what I've said is original or even synthesised. I'm sure much of the information is carried in the extensive biography (which is not reflected in the text). I'll try to source as much as I can.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of things.

1) It doesn't matter if someone's a fighter ace or not. You CANNOT see weapons fire at night without tracers. And to clear up something you seem grossly misinformed about here. He was NOT a fighter ace. He was a show pilot. There is a huge difference. The term "ace" implies a great deal of combat experience. And it wasn't a MiG that tried to force him down, it was a Su15.

2) You're upset that no one will accept your sources. But you equally dismiss every source out there that says that there was no conspiracy theory as being "biased towards the Americans"

3) The black box (which was held by the Russians for years so don't try saying that it was "altered" by Americans) was released years later, and showed normal conversation that you would expect on a civilian passenger plane.

4) After the collapse of the Soviet Union, five Top Secret Soviet memo's were released by President Yeltsin showing that the Russians in fact made NO attempt to contact/warn the plane. Initially mislead the US and Japan into thinking they had not recovered the Black Boxes. And intentionally mislead the Americans and Japanese search efforts in an attempt to disinform the U.S.

5) Let's not forget also...that this was the second passenger plane the Soviets had shot down. The first one, the passengers survived, so it was much harder to claim it was on a "secret spy mission"

Believe me. I believe in many conspiracy theories out there. Who they make look bad and who was behind it holds no meaning to me. But this one is just out there. And has only circumstantial evidence and guesswork at best, against pretty well established fact.

And it's not that I'm "unwilling to face genuine debate" it's just that I'm not really interested in carrying on a debate with someone who sees only what he wants to see. And refuses to back down, despite overwhelming evidence.Abalu (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Abalu

RE: Quotations from the later released top secret Soviet Memo's.

After the plane was shot down:

"Imitation search efforts in the Sea of Japan are being performed by our vessels at present in order to disinform the US and Japan. These activities will be discontinued in accordance with a specific plan."

And later after Soviet Analysis of the Black Boxes failed to reveal ANYTHING supporting the idea of a spy mission but (at best) circumstantial evidence (i.e. their equipment appeared to be working so they should have known where they were going )

"In connection with all mentioned above it seems highly preferable not to transfer the flight recorders to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) or any third party willing to decipher their contents. The fact that the recorders are in possession of the USSR shall be kept secret.

As far as we are aware neither the US nor Japan has any information on the flight recorders. We have made necessary efforts in order to prevent any disclosure of the information in future".

:D.Ustinov, V.Chebrikov ____ December 1983

There were mistakes. There was sloppiness. There was negligence. They shouldn't happen, but they do. Many civilian airliners have gone down over the years because of those very reasons no matter how skilled the pilot, so you can't say it doesn't happen. However, this one was shot down. With no real interest or attempt at any other outcome. Abalu (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Abalu

Thank you for your response. With regard to Wikipedia, I think the discussion has to proceed with cited sources. But with regard to your points:

• I contend that tracers were fired and that an experienced pilot would know he was straying into sensitive territory.
• I never said every source was biased - just Time magazine. That's well established.
• The supposed Soviet memos etc need to be treated with scepticism.
• The previous Korean Airlines incursion into Soviet airspace merely establishes there was a pattern. Was it a pattern of probing radar defences or merely a coincidental pattern of accidents???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

About the tracers. You keep saying you contend they were fired. It's not a matter of contention. It's well established that no tracers were fired. The fighter pilot himself has stated this, in more then one place. Abalu (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Abalu

Also: Link to site that has the memo's: http://www.rescue007.org/TopSecretMemos.htm

If you doubt their authenticity, you can find them, or references to them on other sites also. Abalu (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Abalu

Just a quick fyi to anyone who might wonder why an aircraft would have ammunition without tracers, because the aiming was (and probably still is) done by radar. Pilots don't need a visual cue when shooting by radar, and thus they don't need to give away their position by firing tracers. (Don't forget those pilots were trained to intercept B-52s, and if they had to get close enough to use cannon then giving the rear gunners a nice target by letting them follow tracers back to the gun firing is kinda dumb. If they hadn't been using radar too that is...)

Plus, on a side note, I'd expect an experienced fighter pilot to know he can't get away from interceptors in a 747. So if there had been tracers, and the Flagons had been seen, the argument that an experienced fighter pilot would entertain thoughts of escaping seems like an oxy-moron Anynobody 05:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure why anyone would think providing a weblink to a memo proves its authenticity. However, the memo cited says the black box evidence could have been used by the West. However it says that the aircraft was clearly deliberately off course.
• Your argument on tracers assumes there was only one interception attempt which I think is false. (I don't think the argument about rear-gunners is relevant in this case - the plane didn't have them.) I don't have a source about the tracers to hand, so I can't provide more information at present.
• The main point is not about tracers, but whether there was an attempt on the part of the USSR to force the plane down at any point. The official US version that there wasn't seems inconceivable.
• The quibble about the pilot really being a "show pilot" not an "air ace" doesn't help your cause. Intercepted Soviet communication indicates he was taking evasive action which an airline pilot would not in these circumstances. Since he had been in highly sensitive Soviet airspace for hours he could well have believed he had a chance to escape. And a "show pilot" might be more inclined to overconfidence than someone with extensive combat experience. The real point I was making is that he wasn't a normal airline pilot and certainly wasn't behaving like one.
• All your contentions raise more questions than they answer. If you assume that the "Evil Empire" is capable of anything, no matter how illogical (or even impossible) than of course you wouldn't see this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Capt. Park's belief

A deliberate violation of Soviet airspace does not necessarily imply a violation for intelligence purposes. Capt. Park (now deceased) was Capt. Chun's friend and one time superior in the South Korean Air Force. He also was the pilot of KAL 015 which followed KAL 007 out of Anchorage 15 minutes later, gradually closed the airspace between them, and, of course, arrived at Kimpo alone. He believed that the Capt. Chun's violation was deliberate after having realized after leaving Anchorage that the INS was incorrectedly loaded with coordinates, or had the correct coordinantes inserted by was off in its ramp position (the aircraft having moved from ramp position before coordinates were completely entered). The choice before Capt. Chun was return to Anchorage, dump all his fuel in case of a hard landing (that was KAL regulation), lose face and pay, or, "wing it" to Seoul using Magnetic Compass. He chose the latter. The thing that would speak against this belief of Capt. Park was the non concerned bantering in the cockpit of KAL 007 during some of the most dangerous portions of the flight over Soviet territory - indicating Chun was totally unaware and unconcerned of the possible ramifications of his decision to wing it. (Capt. Park also did not have the KAL 007's Cockpit conversation to inform his views).Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So why didn't Chun report his problem?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion column as a source?

In 1996 a The New York Times article revealed that South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan accepted $4 million from Korean Air in order to gain "government protection" during the investigation of the shootdown. ^{"Korean Bribe Rekindles Flight 007 Issues," The New York Times}

The inclusion of a published opinion as an actual article seems problematic, as it seems like if we include the piece then we should also discuss aspects like The United States should investigate whether Hanjin companies are beneficiaries of Government contracts or subsidies. What does everyone else think? Anynobody 23:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I will change the citation to reflect your complaint.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't quite understand what was going on, so I just posted it. Thank you for clarifying this. :)

How many people boarded in Anchorage

Okay, how many people boarded in Anchorage?

In order to get the number of people who departed from New York, we need to know how many people boarded in Anchorage.

The number of people who boarded in New York would be determined by taking the number of passengers who died (240), adding the four people who boarded in New York and left in Anchroage, and subtracting the people who boarded in Anchorage. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I've removed this -

Larry McDonald died when Soviet fighters shot down Flight 007 after the plane entered Soviet airspace, and was found with bullet hole in head after trying to uncover world wide conspiracy.

- because it was misplaced, unsupported by citations, and raises more questions than it answers (who shot him? what conspiracy?). There's no reason it can't be returned if these issues are addressed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Movies

1. Tailspin: Behind the Korean Airliner Tragedy (1989), an HBO Original Movie with Michael Morriarty and Soon-Tek Oh
2. The British Granada Television documentary drama Coded Hostile (1989 - US title Tailspin) detailed the US military and governmental investigation, highlighting the likely confusion of Flight 007 with the USAF RC-135 in the context of routine US SIGINT/COMINT missions in the area. An updated version of Coded Hostile was screened in the UK in 1993, incorporating details of the 1992 UN investigation.

Are these the same programme? AlexJ (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it probably is, however since they may be different versions (edits) it's probably best to leave the entries separate. Anynobody 07:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interception timeline / Investigations division

The interception section was very hard to follow and lacked references. I cleaned that up. The investigations section seemed to confuse the 1983 and 1993 reports with other info so I divided those 2 Hutcher (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, good job :) Anynobody 07:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the 1993 report should be placed later? As it is we jump back to Reagan in 1983...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the section is about the investigation which happened to have concluded only after a second report ten years later. I tend to prefer a chronologically ordered article but to keep things simple for readers the investigation should be in one section. Anynobody 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a case of what just "happened". The 2nd investigation was based on materials released after the collapse of the USSR. Its chronological placement is not a small issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a small issue, however the second investigation proved that indeed the course deviation had been an accident as postulated by the first. If it had revealed that the CVR was full of dialog about how to penetrate Soviet airspace or that the FDR recorded intentional programming of a course to doom rather than an inadvertent failure to switch autopilot modes then there would be enough information to create a separate section about the second report. If so, I'd argue for the chronological approach too, but as it stands moving the second investigation to the end to create a new tiny section rather than the tiny sub-section it has now isn't a good idea IMHO. Anynobody 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact is the second investigation did occur at the end. Arguably it constitutes a post-Cold War settling of scores and is not necessarily unbiased. Given that other material is laid out in a chronological fashion, it seems unfair to the participants and to the readers that this particular incident is misplaced.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Recovery of debris

The section about the recovery of debris seems unnecessarily complicated. It would be simpler to give the grand totals collected by the different governments. And to add, if you wish, that the USSR was criticised for being tardy.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's terribly complicated but there is always room for improvement. Tardiness is about 10% of it. The "crash site" was much closer to Soviet territory so for the Japanese to recover a vast majority of the debris is very suspicious. That was the point made in my source material but I think I lost that inference. Hutcher (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Crash site" was within Soviet Territory - so, with 95% confidence says Admiral Piotti who commanded Task Force 71 of the Seventh fleet which conducted the SAR/S mission in the unclassified After Action Report adn so indicates the last recorded location (Soviet radio transmission) of KAL 007 in its spiral descent over Moneron Island. (See the Time Table of the Interception Section). See also below ICAO transcripts of documented missions of Soviets to Moneron Island minutes after the shootdown and in particular order from General Strogov for the civilian ships that were "near" Moneron to go to Moneron itself. All of this makes understandable why the SAR/S missions in international waters proved futile.89.138.50.118 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The crash site really needs to be confirmed. The "Western" case generally asserts a non-Soviet site but reserves the right to accuse the USSR of any number of nebulous misdeeds if the site was in fact in Soviet waters.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

One of Our Guys

There are some excellent points of information in the conservapedia article on KAL 007 [5]. How about one of our guys incorporating the info for our approach in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.77.173 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you do it yourself!? Or at least note the points that should be worked into the Wiki article...?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Interception Reconstruction Warning a bit odd

Hey guys, each point in the Interception timeline has a citation so I don't know why we need a warning such as "The following reconstruction of events is largely based on information provided by the US State Department and the CIA." I'll leave it but will need to replace CIA with ICAO whose report is most cited in this section and is a child of the UN ... not a direct relation of the CIA. There was an earlier note claiming bias but this section is heavily cited Hutcher (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and if all the citations lead to the CIA that's not biased, right???!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unjustified Deletion

The following edit has been unjustifiably deleted by Anyeverybody from the Crash Scene section on the grounds of faulty citation and unreliable source (Rescue007):

Here are the After Action Report statements, though, of the Commander of the U.S. Search and Rescue/Salvage Task Force 71 of the 7th Fleet, Admiral Walter Piotti, to his belief that KAL 007 had not come down in international waters but rather in Soviet territorial waters: "Had TF [task force] 71 been permitted to search without restriction imposed by claimed territorial waters, the aircraft stood a good chance of having been found.”...“No wreckage of KAL 007 was found. However, the operation established, with a 95% or above confidence level, that the wreckage, or any significant portion of the aircraft, does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 NM area claimed by the Soviets as their territorial limit.”

This quote and attendant info is NOT from "Rescue007" but directly from the unclassified After Action Report of Commander Walter T. Piotti Jr., dated Nov. 15, 1983, which I have in my hands. I will gladly fax cover page to you and the relevant pages for the quotes. Here is the full citation - Department of the Navy, Commander, Surface Combat Force Seventh Fleet. CTF75/N32:kpm,4730,Ser 011, 15 November,1983, Concluding Observations - Pg. 11 and Operations Involved - pg. 28.

I ask that the above deleted section be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that point does not cite or refer to that rescue website so I don't understand how WP:RS might apply. Does that document live anyplace else on the internet? Hutcher (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the After Action Report is on the Web but I can't imagine anything more authoritative and reliable concerning the crash site than the actual report of the Commander that conducted the Search and Rescue operation. The After Action Report, though , is referred to often enough by students (scholars) of the KAL 007 shootdown. Just two places of mention are the Republican Staff Study of the Committee on Foreign Relations itself, and the article in our Reference Section number #11. In fact, the quote from the After Action Report in Maier's article is the exact quote, except for his introduction, that I had edited in our article and which had been deleted. in any case, very clearly, I have NOT quoted from Rescue007, but from the After Action Report itself. It is a mystery to me why it was deleted. Here is the quote as found in Timothyt Maier:89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

our Reference # 11:

Maier, Timothy (2001-04-16), "Kal 007 Mystery - Korean Airlines flight 007 incident", Insight on the News, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_14_17/ai_75819892/pg_4>

"The U.S. Navy classified Task Force 71 report stated: �The operation established, with a 95 percent or above confidence level, that the wreckage does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 nautical mile area claimed by the Soviets. � Had the Soviets permitted the Task Force to search within their territorial waters, the aircraft may have been found." 89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Unjustified Deletion

The following subsection has been unjustifiably deleted from the Interception section:

"The secret Soviet mission to Moneron

Though the Soviets would claim that they had no knowledge of where KAL 007 had come down (Marshal Nicolai Ogarkov press conference of Sept. 8,1983), they in fact did know where, and had sent at least 2 documented missions to Moneron Island well within Soviet territorial waters. This was at the same time that they were joining with the U.S. in the Search and Rescue operations in 225 sq. nautical miles of international waters to the north of Moneron. The existance of these missions was made known in 1992 with the handover to ICAO by Boris Yeltsin of the real time Soviet military communications requested of him by Senator Jesse Helms of the Committee on Foreign Relations [3]

The first of these missions was at 6:47 a.m. local time, just 21 minutes after missile detonation and nine minutes after KAL 007 had reached 1,000 ft. altitude in its spiral descent over Moneron. It involved the KGB Border Guard boats and rescue helicopters (Khomutovo air base). " Lt. Col. Novoseltski: prepare whatever helicopters there are . Rescue helicopters. Lt. Col. Titovnin:Rescue? Lt. Col> Novoseltski: Yes..." (ICAO, '93, page 93)

The second mission was at 6:55 a.m., 29 minutes after missile detonation and 17 miniutes after KAL 007 had reached 1,000 ft. altitude, and in addition to the borderguards and helicopters, civilian ships "near" Moneron were sent to Moneron itself."General Strogov: The border guards. What ships do we have near Moneron Island, if they are civilian. send [them] there immediately." (ICAO, '93, pages 95,96). General Strogov was the Deputy Commander of Soviet Far East Military Command."

The information about the Ogarkov press conference is accurate and well known and the information about the missions to Moneron is exact and directly taken from the source (ICAO '93 Report). The quotes (Lt. Col. Novoseltski, Lt. Col. Titovnin, General Strogov) are exact, and the citation of the source (which are also before me) is correct, howbeit in the acceptable shortened form. I here give the full form from the most certainly reputable and authoritative (as is considered throughout the article) ICAO report of '93 - "Report of the Completion of the Fact Finding Investigation Regarding the Shootdown of Korean Airline Boeing 747 (Flight KE007)on 31 Aug. 1983. Information Paper no.1. United Nations Security Council-139 Session, 1993, p.93,95,96"

I ask that the above deleted section be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you can save this section if you re-write the text to sound more "encylopedic" and keep your references tight. Hutcher (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can try again - to make it more encyclopedic, but it seems pretty much encyclopedic, and clear, the way it is. Do you think that that is the reason it was deleted? The deleter gives no reason for his deletion.89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet other Unjustifiable Deletions - External Links

From the External Links, I see that the Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors has been deleted and from the Further Reading, I see that "Rescue 007: The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors" has been deleted.

I ask that the above unjustifiable deletions be reinstated89.138.50.118 (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed this article WP:EL. Links to be considered #4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". I guess the question that remains is: "Links normally to be avoided #2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" Hutcher (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, whether or not my edits "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources", it is really ample in information from reliable sources - like ICAO, like Commander Piotti, etc. Further the info I supply is both factual replete with sources, and certainly verifiable. By the way, from the citations in the article, especially, in the time-line, it is evident that I am not the only one possessing and quoting from the ICAO '93 report. Thank you, Hutcher, for ephasizing the word "YET".89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you are offended that I removed your edits, however there are indeed reasons:
This doesn't just show Helms letter but other questionable documents moreover the point it was used to cite, that Yeltsin turned over the tapes and stuff because of this letter, isn't proven by its mere existence. (A source saying Yeltsin was responding to Helms would be necessary)

COMMENTARY: 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT 007 from jamesoberg.com isn't a reliable source. It might be if www.cdi.org, the source it claims to be published in, indeed published it. However searching on their site I couldn't find it trying different searches. Like Commentary: 20th Anniversary or 20th Anniversary KAL 007. The closest I got was Flight 007

Also, your style of citation is incorrect. Please check out Help:Citations quick reference to find out more. Anynobody 01:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot the WP:EL deletion, rescue007 is essentially a repository of conspiracy theories which amounts to factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, though in this case I'd say mostly the latter reason. (Its whole point is that people survived, that definitely isn't verifiable.) Anynobody 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for responding.

1. With regard to a source connecting the handover by Yeltsin with the intervention of Senator Helms, here [6] is the FEB.11.1992 letter of Senator Helms' Staff Director on the Committee of Foreign Relations, Rear Admiral Bud Nance stating that the information coming from Israel about survivors was the reason Helms wrote to Yeltsin (DEC.1991) about KAL 007 asking for the requested info. A little of the clarifying context. In this letter of Admiral Bud Nance, he mentions two letters to Boris Yeltsin from Helms. The first was sent on DEC.5, 1991, and was about the American POWs Helms felt were kept in the Soviet Union after the war(s). On JUNE 15,1992, Yeltsin would respond saying "Our archives have shoiwn that it is true - some of them were transferred to the territory of the former U,S,S,R. and kept in labor camps. We can only surmise that some of them may still be alive." The joint U.S. Russian Federation commission was set to investigate. Five days after sending this letter of request for POW info to Yeltsin, on DEC. 10, 1991 Helms sends to Yeltsin the letter about KAL 007 based on, according to his staff director, Admiral Nance, the CIA verification of the info coming from Israel. On March 24, 1992, Soviet Defense Minister Marshal Ustinov admits on Soviet TV to the Soviet recovery of the Black Box, and Oct 14, partial transcripts from Black Box are handed by the Soviets to the delegation of the American Association For Families of KAL 007 Victims, and the following month Yeltsin hands over empty Black Box in Korea and then the handover of the transcripts to ICAO. I think that it is clear that this period of "thawing" for Yeltsin saw him responding directly to Helms in the KAL 007 matter as he had in the POW matter (and in the Anthrax plague in Sverdlok matter)

2. The article itself which James Oberg is commenting on and which is published in full, is COMMENTARY: 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT 007 which appeared in RIA Novosti // September 1, 2003. It was written by Mikhail Prozumentshchikov, Deputy Director of the Russian State Archives of Recent History and it was reprinted on Johnson's Russia List #7308 (2 September 2003) A CDI Project "http://www.cdi.org" . All this information is contained in the James Oberg article referred to. (I believe that James Oberg himself, though not correct in all things, is considered quite a weighty authority).

Just a note - it is not only the Sept. article in question that does not appear in the Johnson's Russia List archives for 2003, it is All of their articles for Sept., Oct. Nov.and Dec. of 2003. Either something is wrong with their website, (and I just wrote to them about it) or something is wrong with my computer. Here is the Johnson's Russia List archive url - maybe you can get through http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2003.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Would you respond to my Objection to your deletion of my "Commander Piotti" edit?

4. Quote from you "though in this case I'd say mostly the latter reason. (Its whole point is that people survived, that definitely isn't verifiable.)" Even if Rescue 007: The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors were to be considered a repository of conspiracy theory ( which it is not), I re-present this quote from above, with the added emphasize, which shows when such work may still be used "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

1. You seem to misunderstand what I mean by a source, something like Time or The New York Times, which by the way says in a Jan 1991 article that others in Congress were writing as well and doesn't even mention Helms: Soviets Raise Hopes on Answers to Korean Crash. A letter from someone on Helms staff to someone explaining how Helms wrote the letter based on his information, also doesn't prove that the tapes were released because of Helms. (I'm sorry I don't have a longer reply for you on this point, given the obvious effort you put into it, but the letters you cite don't back up the idea of Helms being the cause of Yeltsin's actions.

2.All this information is contained in the James Oberg article referred to. There are two separate issues with Oberg:

• 1. his status as quite a weighty authority, I understand you believe him to be authoritative but if we were allowed to add sources by our own personal beliefs there would be a lot more questionable information on Wikipedia. In order to actually be considered an authority, for our purposes, he needs to be identified by a reliable source as such. As it stands right now, he appears to be a self published expert which is not sanctioned in a topic like this.
• 2. The discrepancy between what his site says and what can be verified. As you pointed out they don't appear to list archives for the month this was supposed to be published, (I wasn't able to find it either as I said earlier) which coupled with the self published nature of the oberg source in the first point, leaves open questions about accuracy. However even if it could be located, bear in mind that, Johnson's Russia List isn't news but more of an op-ed or a blog so it wouldn't get the same weight as sources from universally recognized outlets (Almost everyone's heard of Time or Newsweek but much fewer people know what cdi.org is.)

3. Sure, what were your sources again?

4. I must assure you that I read the whole guideline and am familiar with both the types of site to include and avoid. From rescue007: The evidence, however, tells another story. Japanese radar trackings, Soviet ground-to-ground and ground-to-air communications, KAL 007's flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, the debris (and lack thereof), eye-witness testimonies... All these and more, when pieced together, tell of a plane which was, indeed, damaged, but which managed to land safely, and of passengers who survived and were rescued by the Russians -- only to be imprisoned to this day. I've never seen a major source which backs up these assertions, sure I've seen them mentioned and dismissed. If CNN or The LA Times ran a story actually supporting this (saying that they believed there were survivors too), as opposed to just reporting that some people think there were survivors.

This theory runs counter to what major sources say happened, which is what we concern ourselves with, therefore it's worse than unreliable but is instead unverifiable research. Again if major sources came out in favor of it, or the Russians came out and said there were survivors as well as what happened to them, then we could talk about the possibility of the whole survivor conspiracy. Right now all the major sources say KAL 007 was shot down with no survivors, so citing something else which says different would quite simply be giving undue weight to a minority view. Anynobody 02:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Anynobody, it looks like we are having our own KAL 007 project here. Just to note - the article that you say doesn;t even mention Helms intervention being the cause of Yeltsin's return of the black Box doesn't deal with the subject at all (the Senators mentioned in the artilce were dealing with other matters such as flight deviation), and, in fact, COULD NOT mention Helms even if it did deal with the subject. The article was published on JAN.7 1991. Helm's letter to Yeltsin was sent on DEC. 10, 1991. Nevertheless, I will rewrite this edit either leaving out the part about Senator Helms or casting it as a possiblity, among others.

"3. Sure, what were your sources again?"

I'll bring it down again. It's embedded somewhere above. I will only stress here that this deletion has absolutely nothing to do with survivors and I see no reason for its deletion.

"following edit has been unjustifiably deleted by Anyeverybody from the Crash Scene section on the grounds of faulty citation and unreliable source (Rescue007):

Here are the After Action Report statements, though, of the Commander of the U.S. Search and Rescue/Salvage Task Force 71 of the 7th Fleet, Admiral Walter Piotti, to his belief that KAL 007 had not come down in international waters but rather in Soviet territorial waters: "Had TF [task force] 71 been permitted to search without restriction imposed by claimed territorial waters, the aircraft stood a good chance of having been found.”...“No wreckage of KAL 007 was found. However, the operation established, with a 95% or above confidence level, that the wreckage, or any significant portion of the aircraft, does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 NM area claimed by the Soviets as their territorial limit.”

This quote and attendant info is NOT from "Rescue007" but directly from the unclassified After Action Report of Commander Walter T. Piotti Jr., dated Nov. 15, 1983, which I have in my hands. I will gladly fax cover page to you and the relevant pages for the quotes. Here is the full citation - Department of the Navy, Commander, Surface Combat Force Seventh Fleet. CTF75/N32:kpm,4730,Ser 011, 15 November,1983, Concluding Observations - Pg. 11 and Operations Involved - pg. 28.

As far as I can tell that point does not cite or refer to that rescue website so I don't understand how WP:RS might apply. Does that document live anyplace else on the internet? Hutcher (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if the After Action Report is on the Web but I can't imagine anything more authoritative and reliable concerning the crash site than the actual report of the Commander that conducted the Search and Rescue operation. The After Action Report, though , is referred to often enough by students (scholars) of the KAL 007 shootdown. Just two places of mention are the Republican Staff Study of the Committee on Foreign Relations itself, and the article in our Reference Section number #11. In fact, the quote from the After Action Report in Maier's article is the exact quote, except for his introduction, that I had edited in our article and which had been deleted. in any case, very clearly, I have NOT quoted from Rescue007, but from the After Action Report itself. It is a mystery to me why it was deleted. Here is the quote as found in Timothyt Maier:89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

our Reference # 11:

Maier, Timothy (2001-04-16), "Kal 007 Mystery - Korean Airlines flight 007 incident", Insight on the News, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_14_17/ai_75819892/pg_4>

"The U.S. Navy classified Task Force 71 report stated: �The operation established, with a 95 percent or above confidence level, that the wreckage does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 nautical mile area claimed by the Soviets. � Had the Soviets permitted the Task Force to search within their territorial waters, the aircraft may have been found." 89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)"

Well, Anynobody, it looks like we are having our own KAL 007 project here... make no mistake it's not just the two of us, others are most likely watching. the article that you say doesn;t even mention Helms intervention being the cause of Yeltsin's return of the black Box doesn't deal with the subject at all (the Senators mentioned in the artilce were dealing with other matters such as flight deviation), Again I think you misunderstood my point (but if you want to split hairs I'll address your point at the end as it's not what I was trying to say), that being a newspaper saying a Senator did something is actually a reliable source, an image of a letter is only proof that it was written, not what it did. This was part of your edits I removed, The existance of these missions was made known in 1992 with the handover to ICAO by Boris Yeltsin of the real time Soviet military communications requested of him by Senator Jesse Helms of the Committee on Foreign Relations [3] You have to find a source, like the Times, saying Yeltsin did what you say he did because of Helms letter.

I actually saw your previous post, where it talked about an after action report which I have in my hands. I will gladly fax cover page to you and the relevant pages for the quotes. and was hoping you'd understand that nothing has changed since you said it "Where's your source again?" (It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that we don't work off people's word.) More importantly though, and I apologize I didn't address this in the last post but the after action report is a Wikipedia:Primary source so in order to include it the report should conform to our policy on such sources.

• 1 only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and

*2 make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

The second point doesn't appear to be a problem so far, which is why it's smaller, but how can it be verified by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge?

My problem with your edits about the rescue mission is that I haven't seen any secondary sources (if you read the Primary source link the reason I appear to prefer secondary sources should be obvious, if not please do check it out) cover that part in such detail. (I understand in your POV it's an important detail, believe me I know the frustration of putting aside my personal POV, but neither of our POVs matters like the POV of our sources. If none of them cover this information, and we do, we're essentially adding a new POV to things which is specifically not what Wikipedia is supposed to do.

(As promised to address your concern about the Senators not asking for the same info Helms was, indeed but the point I was making is that 1. they wrote letters too, 2. Russia delivered, and 3. the NY Times said their letters made a difference. As it stands you're working with 2 out of 3, which ain't bad but is also not good enough: 1. Helms wrote 2. Yeltsin delivered 3. ?????) Anynobody 03:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1. They wrote letters but not about military communication transcripts or radar trackings. The Times article points out that they WERE NOT responded to 2. Russia delivered military communication transcripts and radar trackings and the Black Box 3. Helms requested of Yeltsin military communication transcripts and radar trackings. Who do you think were more influential in the return of the Black Box and the handing over of the military transcripts and radar trackings - the "senators: or Helms? see the Interrogatories of Helms' letter for the full listing of requests ato Yeltsin.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you appear to be focusing on the illustration as if it's going into the article, the other Senators wrote etc. (This would be a valid concern had I actually put in the article that Sen Kennedy and others wrote letters etc.) I'm just pointing out where/how such info as Helms letter making any difference would need to be discussed, by someone else, like the news or maybe if Russia made a release crediting Helms, just not his letter to them because it only proves a letter was written, not what it accomplished. Anynobody 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Reworked

I have retitled and reworked deleting reference to Yeltsin handing over military communiques, etc. because of Helms' intervention, and I have provided complete ICAO citations, and posted edit following the Time Table of Attack subsection89.138.50.118 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete this revisied edit of the Mission to Moneron? As you can see, I had deleted all reference to Helms and Yeltsin and have complete citations?

The Soviet Search and Rescue mission to Moneron

Though the Soviets would claim that they had no knowledge of where KAL 007 had come down (Marshal Nicolai Ogarkov press conference of Sept. 8,1983), they in fact did know where, and had sent at least 2 documented missions to Moneron Island well within Soviet territorial waters. This was prior to joining with the U.S. in the Search and Rescue operations in 225 sq. nautical miles of international waters to the north of Moneron. The existance of these missions was made known in 1992 with the turnover to ICAO by the Russian Federation of the real time Soviet military communications (ICAO '93, Information Paper No.1, Sect. 1.15.3.1 - "the representatives of the Russian Federation made available two original tapes and transcripts containing air-ground communicationsbetween the USSRinterceptor aircraft and their command centers, and ground to ground communicationsbetween the USSR Air Defence command centers...") The first of these missions was at 6:47 a.m. local time, just 21 minutes after missile detonation and nine minutes after KAL 007 had reached 1,000 ft. altitude in its spiral descent over Moneron. It involved the KGB Border Guard boats and rescue helicopters (Khomutovo air base). " Lt. Col. Novoseltski: prepare whatever helicopters there are . Rescue helicopters. Lt. Col. Titovnin:Rescue? Lt. Col. Novoseltski: Yes..." (ICAO, '93, Information Paper no. 1., pg. 93) The second mission was at 6:55 a.m., 29 minutes after missile detonation and 17 miniutes after KAL 007 had reached 1,000 ft. altitude, and in addition to the borderguards and helicopters, civilian ships "near" Moneron were sent to Moneron itself."General Strogov: The border guards. What ships do we have near Moneron Island, if they are civilian. send [them] there immediately." (ICAO, '93, Information Papes No. 1., pages 95,96). General Strogov was the Deputy Commander of Soviet Far East Military Command."89.138.50.118 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually did explain that in my last post here, (The paragraph starting My problem with your edits about the rescue mission is...) and I'm going to guess as a person new to Wikipedia that you might not be aware of the edit summary, and its use to explain one's edits. <Accessible through the "History" tab at the top of the article> In this case here's what mine said: Nixed Soviet rescue section, our secondary sources had info too and didn't cover this in such detail, as I explained on the talk page we can't include what they didn't from a WP:Primary source. Anynobody 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Actually the citations you've been doing are different than those already on the page. (I was hoping you'd notice that while there are several ways to cite something, to make things more uniform they shouldn't be mixed and matched otherwise we end up with citations like yours which don't use the <ref></ref> next to those that do. Take a look at the interception timeline entries for 18:23 a line which uses <ref>s to refer to the ICAO report and 18:24 one of yours, referencing the same document in a different way. It's nothing against you, but the variety in this case looks sloppy and will keep this article from ever becoming a Wikipedia:Good article or Wikipedia:Featured article. Anynobody 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Anynobody. I guess there's nothing more I can do, unless anybody else has any ideas. Thanks anyway, Anynobody89.138.50.118 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Required secondary sources found for deleted After Action Report (Commander Piotti)

Anynobody...to summarize your reasons for your deletion of my edit (see below), it seemed to come from a doubtful source - Rescue 007 (It does not!), and /or that it seemed to be more of interpreteive or evaluative origninal research rather than the edit being based on reliable secondary sources and/or intelligent specialists. Well, I have now two reliable secondary sources that not only refer to and quote the After Action Report (of which I have already given the complete citation) but refer to and quote the exact points from the report that I am making in the edit! The first secondary source is what is listed already in the references of the article (#11) and the second is from the oft quoted book on KAL 007 by Michel Brun - Incident at Sakhalin. Here are the two secondary sources:

!. Maier, Timothy (2001-04-16), "Kal 007 Mystery - Korean Airlines flight 007 incident", Insight on the News, <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_14_17/ai_75819892/pg_4>

"The U.S. Navy classified Task Force 71 report stated: �The operation established, with a 95 percent or above confidence level, that the wreckage does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 nautical mile area claimed by the Soviets. � Had the Soviets permitted the Task Force to search within their territorial waters, the aircraft may have been found." 89.138.50.118 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)"

2. Incident at Sakhalin, Michel Brun, Four Walls Eight Windows , New York and London, 1995, pgs. 143,4. Brun writes - "Its Executive Summary [authored by Commander Piotti] states: 'Nothing associated with KAL 007 was discovered. And 'Had TF-71 been permitted to search without the restriction of claimed Soviet territorial waters, the aircraft stood a good chance of having been found'". This is exactly my point and my quote from the After Action Report! Incident at Sakhalin by Brun is listed in both References and Further Reading.

Here is the edit, I want to put up in Crash section in its appropriate place:

Here are the After Action Report statements, though, of the Commander of the U.S. Search and Rescue/Salvage Task Force 71 of the 7th Fleet, Admiral Walter Piotti, to his belief that KAL 007 had not come down in international waters but rather in Soviet territorial waters: "Had TF [task force] 71 been permitted to search without restriction imposed by claimed territorial waters, the aircraft stood a good chance of having been found.”...“No wreckage of KAL 007 was found. However, the operation established, with a 95% or above confidence level, that the wreckage, or any significant portion of the aircraft, does not lie within the probability area outside the 12 NM area claimed by the Soviets as their territorial limit.”

P.S. A third secondary source that refers to Task Force 71 After Action Report - with emphasis on the obstruction and interference posed by the Soviet combatants to the Search and Rescue/Salvage operations - Cold War at Sea, David F. Winkler, U.S. Naval Institute Press, June 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.50.118 (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rescue 007

Anynobody, I want to discuss with you your deletion of Rescue 007" The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors [8]. It was put up in the External Links section of the article and you deleted it. You write - "Oh yeah I forgot the WP:EL deletion, rescue007 is essentially a repository of conspiracy theories which amounts to factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, though in this case I'd say mostly the latter reason. (Its whole point is that people survived, that definitely isn't verifiable.) Anynobody" I need to ask you - Had you read Rescue 007 to be able to form the judgement that it was a "repository of conspiracty theories"? Had you read reviews of the book that considered it a repository of conspiracy theories? The book does conclude that there were survivors to the shootdown. But that is a conclusion. And that has come from a consideration of the evidence. Had you found that there was factually inaccurate material? If so, which material is that? The book contains a great deal of pertinent facts and information concerning the flight, the shootdown and the aftermath. Much of this information has great value for other matters than the issue of survivors. Has the reason that you have deleted the book been because you do not believe in existence of survivors and so excluded our readership of much of this other information? One other thought. I guess that you must or should realize that whether one believes in survivors or not, that is really an issue that would deal with "cover-up" rather than conspiracy per se. And, of course, what "conspiracy" has to do with, related to KAL 007, has nothing to do with survivors, but plenty to do with why the flight "went diverted" and what that has to say about "intelligenc mission" or "intelligence bonus". Rescue 007 brings these issues to the fore but does not decide either way. I would want to reinstate the book in External Links. Let me know your thoughts89.138.50.118 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the lateness of my reply, I'm involved with pressing issues on other articles. Anyway, I think you've misunderstood how wikipedia works. It's all about including points of view which are represented in reliable, verifiable sources. A guy that writes a book using accurate information but coming to a conclusion not shared by third party sources is essentially a self published source. On a related note separating the good info from the survivor conclusions is impossible when citing parts of text for two reasons, 1) A book with a minority premise and no third party support is unreliable 2) We're not supposed to selective use texts anyway in order to avoid issues with WP:NPOV. Anynobody 04:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In short the opinion I gave is based on the criteria set forth in our rules

Anynobody, I just saw the documentary-style movie concerning the four aircraft that struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville field. It gave me new impetus to write you asking once again, and again for the final time, to let the website of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors and the book Rescue 007 to appear on this article. The author of this book makes no money from it. Neither as director of this organization does he receive pay. He works to bring back the survivors, possibly his own relatives, and, at this 25th anniversary of the shootdown, he works to make people aware of the transcripts that are publically available but are largely unknown. Wikipedia is a vehicle for this. Nowhere, other than this book and this website, have the Russian Federation supplied transcripts of the "shootdown" and the subsequent flight and rescue missions of the Soviets, available, readable, consecutively and in the order that the events occured, with full citation (in the book) culled from the many Soviet military communications, been made fully available. Nowhere! I do not have great hope that you will respond favorably, and I will not be contacting you about this matter further. Perhaps other editors, however Wikipedia sees it, can and will rule to bring this about89.138.50.118 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC).

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works, even if I decided to ignore our rules and let the site in doesn't mean all other editors trying to edit according to said rules will do the same thing. Anynobody 05:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

I've manged to make a bit more time for this article, and in doing so noticed that some sources are not acceptable for separate reasons: First there's our rule about self published sources and how it applies to Franz A Kadell's book. The policy says, including emphasis: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Kadell doesn't appear to have been published regarding his expertise in any related field (aircraft, foreign relations, accidents, etc.) so his book is essentially in the same class as Rescue 007 in regard to our policies.

The next source comes from someone who was indeed published regarding his military expertise, however his book was published over twenty years ago, 1987, and much of it has been explained. (The sources written prior to the second ICAO report should be discussed with the understanding that FDR/CVR data was unavailable.) In this case I note it's used as a source for describing the COBRA BALL's role in events, in our new section Flight of the Cobra Ball which makes a big deal about whether or not the RC-135 could've/should've detected the 747. In 1987 the aircraft was still heavily classified, but between then and now the cold war ended and we know more about it: COBRA BALL used infrared tracking to locate heat plumes of ballistic missiles. I'm sure the system had the capability to see KAL 007 had it been looking in the direction from which the airliner was coming instead of the Soviet missile testing area it was actually there watching. The point is that the controversy ended when more about the plane came to be known. (Hell I bet if you asked Pearson he's probably changed some of his opinions since writing the book, one of them being that it might have been able to warn KAL 007.) Anynobody 05:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anybody, The following "Harassment" section has been nixed.

Salvage operations. These missions met with the following various forms of harassment by the Soviets:

7 September - The USS Elliot’s helicopter harassed by Soviet aircraft. 15 September - The USNS Narragansett reported hazardous maneuvering by the Soviet ship Alpinist. 18 September - The Narragansett harassed by the Pegus. 19 September - USNS Conserver operations met with interference from the Gavril Sarychev. The USS Sterrett met with interference from the Pegus. 23 September - The near collision of the USS Callaghan and the Gavril Sarychev. 27 September - The Kashin class destroyer no. 660 interfered with the flight of a U.S. Navy helicopter. Radar lock-ons of U.S. Navy ships by the Kara class cruiser Petropavlovsk and the Kashin class destroyer Odarennyy. 10 October - Soviet ship brandished weapons at Japanese vessel Kaiko Maru No.3 attempting to recover locator buoy. The USS Badger interposed between the vessels[48] 26 October - Soviet combatants criss-crossed in front of the USS Tower and the Conserver. [49]

The reason you give - "nixed mostly unsourced section about specific Soviet harassment events, it's worth mentioning in a sentence that the Soviets hindered searching not an entire section"

But I think that this does have a good source - for all but one of the entries. Cold War at Sea, David F. Winkler, U.S. Naval Institute Press, June 2000, pg. 47. Also, following the events that took place - from harassment to the locking on of weapons, there is a certain build up of tension. I think that is important for people to see.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Have summarized, shortened "Harassment" per your suggestion. Added the citation "Cold War..." above and looking for the second citationBert Schlossberg (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected Info for Nationalities box from Icao '93

The present info for Nationalities numbers is incorrect.The following is from ICAO '93, 1.3, Pg. 6

Republic of Korea 105, United States 62, Japan 28, Taiwan 23 Philippines 16, Hong Kong 12, Canada 8, Thailand 5, Australia 2, United Kingdom 2, Dominican Republic 1, India 1, Islamic Republic of Iran 1, Malasia 1, Sweden 1, Vietnam 1Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC) see [9] for breakdown of who and how many for flight crew, flight attendants, security (air marshals), deadheaders —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Koreans are 76 passengers (includes security), 3 flight crew, 20 cabin crew, 6 deadheaders =105Bert Schlossberg (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone get the above correct information in the box? I don't know how to do it myselfBert Schlossberg (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the nationality numbers according to ICAO '93 1.3, pg. 96 for the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, I have the rest of the numbers above but don't know how to do the boxes with flags. Can someone complete?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct date for ICAO '83

On Sept. 15,16, The Sectretary General of U.N. directed ICAO to open investigation and the First ICAO Report (1983) was released on Dec. 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Top Secret Memos

Just to rectify wrong impressions. There has been doubt cast above on the Top Secret Memos written by the Soviet Defense minister Ustinov and head of KGB Chebrikov to Andropov, (and posting deleted that was based on it). The grounds for the doubt were that that the Memos were spurious, unverifiable, etc. The information contained in them showed that the Soviets recovered the Black Box, and were in the process of deceiving the US SAR 6 th Fleet operations to that fact. They also contained the Soviet estimate that the tapes, could not support the US spy mission for KAL 007 theory that the Soviets were putting forth, and that the tapes were to be kept hidden. Well, there is very good verification for the Top Secret Memos, One is the article "A Cold War Conundrum" Published in 1997 by the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence History Staffer, Benjamin B. Fischer. the other source is indicated and referenced from that article - "The memorandum was written in December 1983 and published in Izvestiya on 16 October 1992. Cited in Christopher Andrew, "KGB Foreign Intelligence from Brezhnev to the Coup," Intelligence and National Security, vol. 8, no. 3 (July 1993), p. 60." The Top Secret Memos were used positively for analysis. The Memos in their entirety can be accessed here [10] Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Key Soviet Officers After the KAL 007 Shootdown section

I decided to move this section due to blatant PoV and original research as if it was a series of short essays. I'm moving the entire section here so that editors can rewrite or clean it while not becoming a source of embarrassment of this article.

In the years gone by since the shootdown, the vicissitudes of Soviet and Russian Federation political systems have left their mark on the lives of the Soviet participants—some as expected, and some with startling surprise!

• Major Gennadie Osipovich, the pilot of the Sukhoi 15 interceptor which shot down KAL 007, retired and still a confirmed Communist, lives on a small farm in the Caucasus and raises strawberries. He receives a small pension equivalent to $150 a month, and occasionally speaks in front of local groups about the shootdown. He says of himself, “I am a lucky man!”

• Air Force Marshal Petr Semenovich Kirsanov was demoted for his responsibility in the Soviet defense flap over Kamchatka (KAL 007 was allowed to pass over Kamchatka and over the Sea of Okhotsk before it was shot down over Sakhalin).

• Major General A. I. Romanenko, KGB Coast Guard Commander of Sakhalin and the Kuriles, who also had headed the Soviet delegation at Nevelsk, Sakhalin which handed over to US and Japanese officials some of the personal effects of the KAL 007 passengers was demoted, exiled, and/or executed—most probably for his oversights related to passenger and black box disposition. The following facts support this hypothesis:

1. Informants of the Israeli Research Centre for Prisons, Psych-Prisons, and Forced Labor Concentration Camps of the USSR report that Romanenko’s name no longer appears in KGB computers. Once in a name is never deleted. Transfers, promotions, demotions, and deaths are entered but names are never deleted.

2. The 1991 Republican Staff Study (draft) of the Committee on Foreign Relations reports that Intelligence sources suggest that General Romanenko himself was sent to the Gulag.

3. Hans Ephraimson, the head of the American Association for Families of KAL 007 Victims reports that when he was at the Soviet embassy in East Berlin, he had been informed by embassy officials that the man he had been enquiring about (although he hadn’t been), General Romanenko, had committed suicide. “Suicides” were often a euphemism for state executions.

• Marshal Valentin Varennikov, who had arrived at Sakhalin Island within 24 hours of the shootdown in order to head the Secret State Commission and its cover-up, rose to become Deputy Defense Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces before his imprisonment (and subsequent release) for the part he played in the August 1991 coup attempt against Gorbachev. In 1994, the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declared him not guilty. On December 17, 1995, he was elected deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Convocation. In January of 1996, he became Chairman of the Committee of the State Duma Veteran’s Affairs.

• General Ivan Moiseevich Tretyak (Commander of the Far East Military District) and General Vladimir L. Govrov (Commander of the Far East Theater of Operations) were both promoted to the Ministry of Defense in Moscow—the former as Deputy Minister of Defense and Commander in Chief of Soviet Air Defense Forces (1991) and the latter as Deputy Minister of Defense for Civil Defense. These are the two most senior military commanders known to have made the decision to destroy KAL 007.

• Valery Vladimirovich Ryzhkov, on-duty commander of Radio-Technical Battalion 1845, which had tracked KAL 007’s flight to what he believed to be a safe water landing, and who was so bitter about being passed over for promotion while others in his unit had received promotions , was finally granted that promotion and made commander of the command post of Radio-Technical Battalion 2213 in Mariinskoe Settlement on the Amur river of the Soviet Primorsky (Maritime) opposite Sakhalin.

• Lieutenant General Valeri Kamensky, Commander of Soviet Far East Military District Air Defense Forces and “strategic” commander of the shoot down, made a lateral positional move at the breakup of the Soviet Union. He became Chief of Staff and Commander of the Ukrainian Air Defense Forces. It was on his watch that another civilian passenger plane was shot down—the Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 Tupolev 154 carrying 78 new immigrants to Israel on a flight from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk. It was shot down over the Black Sea. In an interview prior to this latest shoot down, General Kamensky, commenting on the shoot down of KAL 007 opined that it could not happen again nowadays

But the big winner in the long run (that is, the one who made the biggest jump) was:

• General Anatoly Kornukov, commander of Sokol Air Force Base—the base from which Colonel Gennadie Osipovich’s Sukhoi 15 took off in its fateful mission. As told in the words of the International Herald Tribune:

“Russian Who Doomed 007. New Air Chief Ordered ‘83 Downing of KAL Flight. MOSCOW — The Russian Air Force acknowledged Friday that its new chief was the commander who ordered a pilot to shoot down a South Korean jet liner off Sakhalin Island in 1983, killing all 269 people aboard…”

General Kornukov, who had retained his position even when, in 1976, Lt. Victor Belenko, a pilot under his command had defected to Japan with his MiG 25—the most advanced Soviet fighter of the time—also survived the KAL 007 incident, eventually attaining the highest appointment possible in his field of service—commander of the entire Russian Air Force. (In January of 2002, General Kornukov resigned as Commander of the Russian Air Force and now advises the Russian Federation in matters of missile defense and defense against aerial hijacker terrorist attacks against Russian cities. Against the terrorist threat from the air, he believes Russia unprepared considering the Russian air defense commanders often absentee, "passing the buck", and lacking coordination. His "hardliner" stance concerning aerial intrusion generally over Russian soil continues his attitude of over 25 years ago in the downing of KAL 007. A current example of this hardliner stance, as reported in Pravda of March 31, 2004:"Former commander of Russian Air Force, General Anatoly Kornukov calls Russian authorities to be tough in dealing with NATO aircraft which would appear near Russian borders after Baltic countries" joining the alliance, the Russia Journal said. NATO gained seven new allies [on] new Russian borders. "Because of NATO expanding we should apply tough policy, including tough measures to NATO aircrafts. If an aircraft violated the state border, it must be shot down. International law allows this", said General Kornukov. "To begin with, the Baltic states should be reminded that good-neighbor relations have nothing to do with military aircrafts barraging along the neighboring country borders. They are flying not just for pleasure, they are likely to be well-armed".)

--BirdKr (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Secret memos citation request

In the remark below, I am asked for citation as the one I had given was not proper. This is correct. What I had given as a citation was just to refer (italics) to the body of the Memo below which justifies my statement. But this should have been in the talk page not the article

" [The Soviets] had decided to keep this knowledge secret - the reason being that the tapes could not[citation needed] support the claim being maintained that the flight of KAL 007 into Soviet Territory was an intelligence mission:"

from the Memos=

"Simulated search efforts in the Sea of Japan are being performed by our vessels at present in order to dis-inform the US and Japan. These activities will be discontinued in accordance with a specific plan...

"...Therefore, if the flight recorders shall be transferred to the western countries their objective data can equally be used by the USSR and the western countries in proving the opposite view points on the nature of the flight of the South Korean airplane. In such circumstances a new phase in anti-Soviet hysteria cannot be excluded'.

I think that "could not unequivically prove" should do it.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation is a bit better now. You'll notice I cleaned up two sections due to POV issues. Also, the excerpt from the memo seem to reason that the black box should be withheld to avoid "anti-Soviet hysteria" than to maintain the credibility of their claim that KAL 007 was doing intelligence work. --BirdKr (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant "simulating a search" not "stimulating to search". I changed it. I also think that the point of that portion of the Memo is that because the tapes could be interpreted by the west in a way that would not support the Soviet version of KAL 007 on an intelligence mission, that would lead to anti-Soviet hysteria, and so the tapes were to be withheldBert Schlossberg (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

wrong numbers for "nationality" box

There are only 239 passengers when all are added up. It should be 240 passengers (as is correctly put in the Total). The reason for the mistake is that one (1) for Vietnam has been left out.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not corrected. I woiuld do it myself if I knew howBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

related wikisource text

A document (s:KAL 007 and the Russian Ramming) has been placed onto Wikisource by an anon, however it isnt acceptable. As I will be deleting the Wikisource talk page shortly, here is the query and my reply. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

“ This is my second try to get this article up. I think I missed a connection from the explanations given be, though I know that people tried. Well, once again! This is a first hand account by a participant in the events told. It has never been published anywhere except put up by the author or with the author's permission on web sites. The author has given me permission to put it up on wiki. The immediate purpose of mine in putting it up as an article on wikisource is to link to it from Korean Air Lines Flight 007 I'll be trying to understand as the explanations come. My hope, of course, is that it will pass.89.139.165.97 18:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wont do the linking until I hear back about the above89.139.165.97 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource does not publish original documents. This page is not acceptable on Wikisource. Please read our inclusion policy. I suggest that you write a news story about it on Wikinews, as an interview. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

”

Have written news story and linked to it from article. Thanks for advice! How long will the interview be accessed from the KAL 007 article?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your link to Wikinews as wikinews:KAL 007 and the Russian Ramming Attempt is not a published news story. If you want to write a news story, you need to write about the incident in a manner that is interesting to read, and it needs to be published by the wikinews editors. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It was written and published http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/KAL_007_and_the_Russian_Ramming_Attempt#Sources . Please reinstateBert Schlossberg (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb, wikinews page had already been written and published when you wrote this note "remove link to wikinews page which hasnt yet been written and "published")" I have again reinstatedBert Schlossberg (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC) (undo)

New "Flight Deviation until Attack" section

Citations to followBert Schlossberg (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

number of flight attendandts

There were only 20 flight attendants all together. There were also 6 deadheaders (repositioning KAL emplyees) and, of course, the 3 flight crew. With the 240 passengers (including airmarshals) that makes 269 occupants to KAL 007. See [11] for detailed breakdownBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop linkspamming to your personal website. You clearly have a wealth of information and we are delighted to have you on board, however you must ensure that you adhere to wikipedia guidelines. Guycalledryan (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

O.K.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that my website has also been deleted from the External Links section. I had not put it there. I understand that you do not want me to put up my own website. Is the website of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors also forbidden when put up by others than myself?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Guycalledryan or any others, the website of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors http://www.rescue007.org/ was removed from the External Links section on the grounds that I shouldn't put up my own website. I noted in the above posting, to which I have yet to receive a reply, that I was not the one who put up the website on External Links. I asked the question, if it was forbidden for others to put up my website. Perhaps, my website was removed thinking that I was the one who had put it up (Is that a wikipedia justified reason, anyway, for removing an edit to the Links section?) I ask that the website be restored to the External Links section.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored what was wrongfully removed (see above)Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I keep removing links (and mentions) to rescue007 is because there is no evidence that it is anything more than a personal website founded and run by one or more relations to those who died in the crash. As far as I can tell it has received no media coverage, has not been recognised by governments as an authoritative source and provides no evidence that it is supported by any more than a couple of family members. Put simply, it appears to fail every possible notability guideline imaginable, and until some claim of credibility can be established it has no place in this article.

I have also removed a couple of large quotes, Wikipedia is not a collection of data and there is nothing that cannot be stated in summary without the original source. Also, unless I missed something about Igorevich Girs being made a spokesman for the Russian government his words in a television interview do not constitute a "Russian response", which implies an official stance taken by the Russian government. I'm on the verge of removing the Andrey Illesh quote, but would like some confirmation as to whether he had offical or popular support at the time of writing his book.

I would like to know why the Kadell reference was removed, it seems to provide a legitimate theory about how the tragedy could have been avoided. Has there been an explanation provided as to why his position is false, or are you challenging his book as a reliable source? Guycalledryan (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"As far as I can tell it has received no media coverage," Here is some coverage - *AIM column on KAL 007 - "Let's Ask Putin"

• AIM Column on KAL 007 - "Put it to Putin"
• AIM column on KAL 007 - "Questions for President Putin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

February 11, 2006: Bert Schlossberg interviewed by Larry Pratt on Live Fire. June 1, 2005: Bert Schlossberg interviewed by Ken Bagwell on the Heads Up America radio talk show on Supertalk WZNN AM 1350. June 30, 2002: Bert Schlossberg and Ben Torrey interviewed by Rod Utech on the POW/MIA hour, American Freedom Radio. February 10, 2002: Bert Schlossberg and Ben Torrey interviewed by Rod Utech on the POW/MIA hour, American Freedom Radio. June 29, 2002: Bert Schlossberg interviewed by Frank Foster on Wealth of a Different Kind, Frank Foster Show. About 20 other shows —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrey Illesh was the co-author (with Shalnev) of the Izvestai series on KAL 007Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just read over my earlier comments, and they were too aggressive/offensive, for that I apologise. However, the fact remains that a couple of columns in a relatively minor news source is nowhere near enough to push something over the notability threshold, there needs to be some recognition from authorities or a larger media coverage in order for something to be eligible for inclusion.

As for Illesh, was he speaking on behalf of the Russian government, or did he have the support of a bulk of the Russian people? If not then we really cannot class his comments as being part of the "Russian response", they can only be labeled as his personal views.

Anything on the Kadell reference?

Cheers Guycalledryan (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Russian Response/Kadell

What was the Kadell reference that was deleted?

I don't think that there was any official response to the lack of bodies after the concession by Ogarkov that indeed there were civilians aboard. That concession set the problem up again But there were non official but genuinly accepted Russian response that appeared in various places through the years and some by pivotal people in the episode. To me this is acceptable in the framework of the article. Russian Responses need not imply Russian "official" responses. For the civilian divers themselves who had gone down just 2 weeks after the shootdown and express their astonishment at the lack of human remains, the responses were, they must be visiting the wrong plane, crabs must have gotten them, they must have been scattered elsewere by KAL 007's decompression on the way down, and Russian military divers which had preceded them must have removed the bodies. These reports were published in the Izvestia series and afterwards. The head of the Russian Far East air defenses that ordered the shootdown - Gen. Valeri Kamenski, rests on it's just a mystery after dismissing the theory http://www.rescue007.org/kaminski.htm that the nose and tail sections must have broken off from the main fuselage and created a wind tunnel that dispersed the people elsewhere than where the wreakage was. These may not be official explanations but they are both a recognision that no bodies presents a problem and attempts to provide possible solutions. I think that this qualifies as Russian responsesBert Schlossberg (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

moved to Wikisource

Per suggestions, I have moved KAL 007: Inside the Cockpit to wikisource under the new title KAL 007: From Inside the Cockpit. But when I click on it appears under wikipedia ? Bert Schlossberg (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because you published it in Wikipedia, Wikisource is over here. Guycalledryan (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource does not want this, as it is not published! If you want to use this as a reliable source, you need to get it published in a peer-reviewed venue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource does want a recently referenced document, "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Nos. 907, 1057 August Term, 1994 (Argued: April 5, 1995 Decided: July 12, 1995, Docket Nos. 94-7208, 94-7218". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Have restored time line. Concise guide to reconstructing post detonation flight. Chock full of encapsulated info, functioning as time lines usually do, enabling mental reconstructing and relationship with other events chronologically, without excessive wordiness.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

Under "Interception": When this failed, the pilot of the lead aircraft reported firing 120 rounds of tracer ammunition in four 30-round bursts and the pilot of KAL 007 still failed to respond.

Under the timeline: The lack of tracers made them invisible to the 747, which continued on its course.

This is obviously very inconsistent, only one can be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.91.231 (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done - if there are other inconsistencies please bring them here --windyhead (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done but the correction, I think, was done in the wrong direction. How many rounds and what type has always been in contention ( with other descriptions by Osipovich). He has changed his libretto in successive interviews in the direction of placing more responsiblity on the shoulders of the Soviet Union. Af first it was a military plane, then a passenger plane with double row of windows and a 747 (but on military mission}. At first there were no navigation lights at all, then there were blinking lights. The same with tracers. His first interview he said with tracers. In the final interview (Dec. 9, 1996 - New York Times) he reports that there were no tracers but believes that the flashes from firing should have be seen. "To try to force the plane down he fired his cannon three times, shooting off a total of 520 rounds. But the shells did not contain tracers and were not visible at night." Notice also the difference in the number of shells! In a case like, this, it is best not to make a conclusion and not mention it -unless in a quote by Osipovich - or mention it in the direction of his moving disclosure. I think his latest version was correct - there were no tracers. This is in the context of calling his earlier version a "libretto" given by the Soviets to him to exonerate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - if you have access to the source - please edit the article and support it with comprehensive cite from the source --windyhead (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So in fact there is no confirmed source on the lack of tracers, just a confused series of interviews conducted by hostile sources. Why could we take the original statement as closer to the event and closer to the truth? Why is there the assumption that Soviet forces would deliberately shoot down a civilian aircraft? Why is there the assumption that this civilian aircraft must be innocently off course and innocently seeking redirection? Why are these assumptions vehemently maintained in defiance of readily available evidence???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please state your proposals --windyhead (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Osipovich stated in 1996 that he knew the aircraft was a 747 passenger plane by the double row of windows but that he believed and still did at the time of the interview it to be on an intelligence missionBert Schlossberg (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Windyhead's question, I propose that biased assumptions be removed from the article. If we aren't sure if tracers were fired (etc, etc), then simply say that.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

looks like it is already done, is it?--windyhead (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of attack

I think the timeline of attack which was removed here [12] actually adds value to the article, and it's common for crash articles to include detailed outline. --windyhead (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Windyhead, will you put it up again. I put something up and down it goesBert Schlossberg (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Despite the Soviet Denials..."

On his press conference of Sept. 9, 1993, Marshal Ogarkov stated, "We could not give the precise answer about the spot where it [KAL 007] fell because we ourselves did not know the spot in the first place." "Despite the Soviet denial..." is correct. They denied knowing where "it fell" but the release of the Soviet real time military communications show that they knew exactly where it had come down and had sent the missions to the exact place they had viewed KAL 007 coming down - tiny Moneron IslandBert Schlossberg (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the "place they had viewed KAL 007 coming down" and the place "where KAL 007 had gone down" is not always same thing. Which turns out to really differ because they sent helicopters to the island and sources talk that crash site was in water. Even 5 km is real difference on the ocean. --windyhead (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Got your point now, windyhead. Well, what I can say is this (would supply sources if asked), KAL 007 was last seen coming down over Moneron Island, which is just 4 1/2 N-S miles by 3 1/2 miles E-W. It was followed by at least two Soviet radar stations on the Maritime opposite Sakhalin (Komsomolsk na Amura and Edinka) until it was 1,000 ft. above the sea. It could not be followed further because of the curvature of the earth. among the Soviet assets sent to Moneron, General Strogov, Deputy Commander of the soviet Far East Military District, ordered civilian ships that were "near" Moneron to go "to" Moneron. The last location for KAL 007 descending according to the real time military communications was Moneron within Soviet territorial waters. I think that all this indicates that the place KAL 007 was seen to fall was pretty well near where it actually fell. Again to note - it was precisely the territorial waters around Moneron that the Soviets denied entrance to the Allied SAR operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What I dispute is the "despite" word - think about that some people may have an opinion that those locations are different enough and Soviet denial was correct --windyhead (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I will think about it. You may be right. Can't think now at all. When I can, and I agree, I will change it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed it.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nationlities and Numbers again

The recent edit (with flags) with nationalities and numbers is incorrect. The following is from ICAO '93, 1.3, page 6 Republic of Korea 105, United States 62, Japan 28, Taiwan 23, Philippines 16, Hong Kong 12, Canada 8, Thailand 5, Australia 2, United Kingdom 2, Dominican Republic 1, India 1, Islamic Republic of Iran 1, Malaysia 1, Sweden 1, Vietnam 1.

Numbers of nationlities still incorrect. The above is the official from the ICAO 93 reportBert Schlossberg (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected Interception Section

I have changed the Interception Section at two points. The way it was written, it sounds like KAL 007 continued its descent all the time after missile strike, and it sounds like the the Black Box only stopped funtioning at the end of descent with a crash into the waters. My changes indicate the leveling off at 5,000 meters (16,424 ft.) for almost 5 minutes before it resumed its descent, and indicate that the Black Box recordings ended prior to KAL 007's contact with the water. (post missile strike flight lasted at least 12 minutes but recordings ended at 1 minute and 44 seconds after missile strike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 07:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro edit

There were also claims that the aircraft was "filled with garbage" instead of passengers as there were very little number of human remains found.

I've deleted this from the intro as it has no citation and properly belongs later in the article if at all. Who on earth claimed this???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Viyacheslav Popov, one of the divers, did:

"I will confess that we felt great relief when we found out that there were no bodies at the bottom. Not only no bodies; there were also no suitcases or large bags. I did not miss a single dive. I have quite a clear impression: The aircraft was filled with garbage, but there were really no people there. Why? Usually when an aircraft crashes, even a small one... As a rule there are suitcases and bags, or at least the handles of the suitcases."Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sources added, and please add sources for "269 onboard". It stays in the lead as a summary of the article, being an important part of controversy around the crash. --windyhead (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Still question why this obviously false observation is included in intro.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

International Committee website

I have put up the website of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors Inc. This is not a personal website but the site of an organization incorporated in the State of Connecticut that has been active in research for 10 years. The organization, supplies information about all matters concerning KAL 007 to research groups of various kinds, as well as to general educational facilities and endeavors (such as via the edits in this wikipedia article on KAL 007). The organization also has served as a liaison to the congressional committees in this and related matters, and as center for families of the victims of this tragedy who are in agreement with the central purpose of the Committee.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

new photos

I have uploaded a photo of Gennadie Osipovich from an unkown newspaper from 1983Bert Schlossberg (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I have uploaded the unclassifed After Action Report from the 7th Fleet search operationsBert Schlossberg (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

new Missile damage to plane section

with RamblinMan's revert and suggestions in mind, I have deleted a couple of direct references to KAL 007 (leaving it for the readers to infer) and I have rearranged - all in the favor of neutral point of view. But actually, my emphasis is pretty much the emphasis of the damage analysis of ICAO '93. I think that this is so because the 93 analysis found not so severe damage as had been presented by ICAO '83 and noted that fact by comparisons. For instance, the left wing with its engine, a la Osipovich's statements, being destroyed, with Black Box tapes indicating left wing was intact.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) I will restore references laterBert Schlossberg (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

photos taken down

The photos of the Soviet ships taken real time in Soviet operations were taken down. These photos (noted under photos) are released by the Navy Deptartment, and rights reverted to Paul Soutar, the naval photographer who took the pictures. He has given me express permission in writing to do with them as I see fit. Wouldn't that be enough for the pictures to be posted?Bert Schlossberg (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help me on this? Here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007&oldid=229631454 is the page with the boxes where the photos and images were and the inscriptions. The photos no longer appear. I don't know why they were taken down and I think that they add a lot to the article. I don't think that there are copyright problems. One photo is from an unknown newspaper of 25 years ago, another is the Time magazine cover of 25 years ago, one image from a government publication, and the rest I have express written permission by the photographer to use as I see fit. These are photos he took during the naval operations and which were released by the Navy Department. Can someone advise me or put them back up for me? ThanksBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Permission" photos are not allowed on Wikipedia. They are supposed to be photos that have entered into the public domain or that have released by the owner under the GFDL license. If the photographer agrees to release the photos in either of these ways, then Wikipedia (and anybody else) can use them for any purpose.

However, I doubt the assertion you are making about the Navy photos is accurate. If the photographer was a naval photographer and took these photos while on the job, then by US law, the photos are a work of the U.S. Navy and hence a work of the federal U.S. government, and hence are automatically in the public domain. It doesn't matter what the photographer says; he has no rights to the photos. We can just use them.

A photo from an unknown newspaper from 25 years ago is still copyrighted and is not usable. The Time magazine covers are often used on Wikipedia under a fair use argument that is often questionable (but the current use in this article looks like a great fair use argument). Images created by the federal government or one of its employees - these are in the public domain and are always OK to use. (It is possible that a federal government publication might publish a copyrighted image from some other source; in this case the image is still copyrighted, even though it appeared in the federal publication; and we can't use it.) Tempshill (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro - Soviet POV

I have edited the intro to remove the suggestion that the USSR denied it was a civilian aircraft. The "Soviet Response" section makes the Soviet position clear.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there are international sources provided within article regarding "The aircraft had violated Soviet airspace" so it's not only Soviet POV. And would be really good if intro would briefly summarize controversy described within article including both sides arguments (including the USSR denied it was a civilian aircraft). --windyhead (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record - In his Sept. 9, 1996 interview Osipovich stated that he knew that it was a civilian Boeing from the double rows of windows. He told ground controllers that there were blinking lights, which, I take , he believed should have alerted them to the fact that the plane was a transport. But he did not tell them what he believed about it being specifically a Boeing:

"From the flashing lights and the configuration of the windows, he recognized the aircraft as a civilian type of plane, he said. 'I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing,' he said. 'I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use.'... Osipovich also revealed that in the pressure of the moment, he did not provide a full-description of the intruder to Soviet ground controllers. 'I did not tell the ground that it was a Boeing-type plane,' he recalled. 'They did not ask me.' He did, however, tell Soviet ground controllers that the plane had blinking lights on, which he says was an indication that it could be a transport plane."

By Sept. 9, 1983 (Marshal Ogarkov press conference) the Soviets were admitting that it had been a civilian plane they shot down filled with passengers, but which had been used for espionage purposes.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So how and where you'd suggest this to be described? --windyhead (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. In "Russian responses to the dearth of human remains - Military complement theory"Bert Schlossberg (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)By the way, the photos which were taken down really enhanced the article. Can they be put up again. Can someone do it? A number of them were released and permission given to me to do with them what I wanted. some of them were real time photos of the action by a naval photographer at the sceneBert Schlossberg (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My point was that the intro said that the USSR denied the aircraft was civilian. This was wrong and I've corrected it.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it! I don't remember any thing about the USSR denying that it was a passenger plane officially. If they did, it would have been before Sept. 9 when Ogarkov acknowledged that it was a civilian passenger plane. Maybe someone knows something about that. But it is clear that just prior to to the shootdown, Lt. Col Maistrenko whom the Combat Controller directing Osipovich was reporting to, and who was the one, down the chain, giving the O.K. for the shootdown, did not think that it was a transport plane. Osipovich though not telling his Controller that it was a Boeing he was viewing did tell him that its navigation lights was blinking, and assumed that that would have told them also that it was a "transport" plan. It looks like the blinking lights was not communicated by Titovnin to Maistrenko (See the interchange of the "Osipovich - Combat Controller mis-communication of article". But, as is consonant with your remarks, this does not constitute a denial by the USSR that the plane was a passenger planeBert Schlossberg (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

dearth is O.K.

"dearth" is good English. It means "a lack of" but not absolutely nothing. The lack of bodies was startling. As one of the divers expressed it, they expected a cemetary instead of the practically nothing they found. But there were some remains.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Again "dearth" is taken out and "death" substituted. since "dearth" is not commonly known, I will substitute "lack". though not as accurate for the above reason.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not enough people are acquainted with Tolkien and the "Days of Dearth".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the Soviet kidnapping theory...

I've heard a second theory that that there were at least some survivors, who were then kidnapped and improsoned by the Soviets in an attempt to contain the damage of the incident. Certainly http://www.rescue007.org/ makes a case for this, although I don't know anything about the person who put it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.190.6 (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The person is Bert Schlossberg, myself. I also contribute to this article. Just to note.- the site is not my personal site but the site of the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, which I directBert Schlossberg (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So where are these people now, or have they vanished like the WMDs?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not conclusive, but some of this is credible evidence [13]. There is also additional material here [14] Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

KAL007's almost five minute post-attack level flight section (now tagged)

This section contains neither original research nor unverified information. This level flight of KAL 007 after the attack and before the spiral descent over Moneron Island is the conclusion of ICAO '93 and is one of the differences between ICAO'83 and ICAO'93. ICAO '83 sets forth (carried on by ICAO '93) that KAL 007 descended to altitude 5,000 meters four minutes after the attack - at 18:30 GMT (This time was ammended to 18:31 by NSA 1991 re-analysis). Official government statements to that effect were issued immediately after the incident:

The original U.S. special intelligence raw data, as publicly reported in the U.S. statement to the United Nations Security Council on September 1, 1983 by U.S. Ambassador Charles Lichenstein, stated: "At 1830 hours [after 4 minutes], the Korean aircraft was reported by radar at an altitude of 5,000 meters."

Moreover, also on September 1, Secretary of State George Shultz stated more fully: "At 1826 hours the Soviet pilot reported that he fired a missile and the target was destroyed. At 1830 hours [or 4 minutes later] the Korean aircraft was reported by radar 5,000 meters [16,400 feet]. At 1838 hours [12 minutes after being hit] the Korean plane disappeared from the radar screen."

ICAO '93, provides the additional information both in the body of the report and in the supporting information papers that KAL 007 descended from Flight level 5,000 meters at 18:35 descending in spirals over Moneron after an almost 5 minute level flight.

"The last plotted radar position of the target was 18:35 hours at 5,000 meters." (ICAO 1993, pg. 53, para. 2.15.8)". See also 1993 ICAO Report Information Paper No. 1, pg. 134-135

The Discovery Channel documentary erroneously began KAL 007's spiral descent immediately upon missile detonation leaving out the level flight. The History channel documentary had a few moments representation of the level flight before the resumption of the descent. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Major problems

There are more issues than I can address in one heading, so I'll start with the most recent one discussed here and problems with it. Anynobody(?) 03:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

KAL007's almost five minute post-attack level flight

This section is full of errors which not only are generally inaccurate, but WP:OR to boot. I'll start with the title and its basic error. The modified FDR data, shows the plane to be either climbing, diving, or rolling after the explosion. Moreover the end of the plot shows KAL 007 in a shallow descent, which continued until it lost hydraulic fluid and began the spiraling descent.* If the plane is descending it is not in level flight so the title has got to change. Then there is the flimsy comparison to China Airlines Flight 006 as proof KAL should have plummeted from the sky. The aircraft in that incident entered a steep dive because the pilot failed to properly trim it after engine #4 flamed out. (The NTSB found that engines #1, #2, and #3 did not fail as this section says, yet another reason it has to go.) It's also OR because no source is cited saying that KAL should have lost altitude like CA 006. (Though also OR I'd like to point out that a better comparison would be Japan Airlines flight 123 as it too experienced structural failure and loss of hydraulic systems at high altitude. I'm not suggesting we put such a comparison in, because I haven't seen it anywhere, I'm simply pointing out how in addition to be original research, comparing KAL 007 and CA 006 is a very apples/oranges difference and thus inaccurate.) Anynobody(?) 03:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%, which is why I tagged it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt according to the official government statements (Secretary of State Shultz, Ambassador Lichtenstein) already quoted that KAL 007 had reached 5,000 meters at 18:30.31. At 18:33/34, according to ICAO '93 already quoted and referenced, KAL 007 is still at level 5,000 meters. At 18:35, according to ICAO '93, allready quoted and referenced, KAL 007 is tracked descending from level 5,000 feet. Unless you want to say that in between 18:30/31 and 18:33,34 and in between 18:33,34 and 18:35 KAL 007 descended and ascended, descended and ascended, or alternatively ascended and descended, ascended and descended (all unsubstantiated), then KAL 007 maintained level flight, for almost five minutes - and thus the title for this section: KAL007's almost five minute post-attack level flightBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) The Modified FDR info that you refer to (Chart 8. BEA) to indicate that the plane is shown not to be in level flight is only of the first 1 minute and 44 seconds of flight. It could not show the level flight which was subsequent. What shows the level flight is the subsequent tracking of flight by radar and the supporting military communicationsBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Missile damage to aircraft

Where does this information come from? (Eg the statement that 3 of 4 hydraulic systems failed?) I was under the impression that not enough wreckage was recovered to do a proper reconstruction. Anynobody(?) 04:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This information came from ICAO '93 analysis of DFDR tapes.To summarize - Immediately upon missile detonation, the jumbo jet begins to experience buffeting (yawing) as the dual channel yaw damper is damaged (Plot 2 of BEA charting , line 6). Yawing would not have occurred if either No. 1 or No. 2 hydraulic systems were fully operational. What does not happen that should have happened is that the control column (Plot 1, line 3) does not thrust forward upon impact (it should have done so, as the plane was on autopilot -- plot 2, line 8 -- to bring down the plane to its former altitude of 35,000 feet). This failure of the autopilot to correct the rise in altitude indicates that hydraulic system No. 3, which operates the autopilot actuator, a system controlling the plane's elevators, was damaged or out There was no indication of hydraulic system no. 4 being damaged or out. I do not have the ICAO report in front of me to give the reference enumeration and page but if there is further doubt I will provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Schlossberg (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

corrected url

I have put in the correct url for the New American article KAL Flight 007 Remembered in External LInksBert Schlossberg (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationlities and Numbers again

The edit (with flags) with nationalities and numbers is incorrect. The following is from ICAO '93, 1.3, page 6: Republic of Korea 105 [This includes the 76 passengers, the 3 flight crew, the 20 cabin crew, and the 6 "deadheaders"], United States 62, Japan 28, Taiwan 23, Philippines 16, Hong Kong 12, Canada 8, Thailand 5, Australia 2, United Kingdom 2, Dominican Republic 1, India 1, Islamic Republic of Iran 1, Malaysia 1, Sweden 1, Vietnam 1. I would correct the chart myself if I knew how.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've cleaned up the images

• Deleted and removed links to those images uploaded with licences incompatible with the GFDL (eg for non-commercial or Wikipedia use only)
• removed forced thumb sizes which override user preferences
• removed |right since that is the default
• tried to avoid sandwiching text between two images (not very successfully
• removed photographer credits which should be on the image's page, not the article

thanks jimfbleak (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also cleaned up headings, except chart recorder which doesn't make sense now its image has been deleted. jimfbleak (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty much at a loss concerning the images. The ships have all been released bu the Navy Dept. to the naval photographers, who took them 25 years ago, and I have written permission from them to use as I see fit. Bert Schlossberg (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above just now, "permisson" images are not usable on Wikipedia. But as a side note, if the naval photographers worked for the US Navy when the photos were taken, then the photos are just in the public domain, and we can use them. If by some incredible chain of events the rights belong to individuals, which I highly doubt, then written permission is not OK on Wikipedia; the photographers would have to release the photos under the GFDL or into the public domain for us to be able to use them. Tempshill (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! The photographers did work for the Navy when the photos were taken. They were aboard the USS Sterett and other ships at the time the operations were going onBert Schlossberg (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"unidentified" passenger link

(See [2] for passenger and crew photos and stories and [3] for photos of passengers who had boarded the plane but who have not been linked to passenger list and remain unidentified).

The [3] link there links to a page showing a number of black-and-white photos of passengers, with the text "Below are photos of KAL 007 passengers scanned from "Life Magazine". If you can identify any of these photos, let us know. Thanks."

The article makes it sound like these passengers' identities are a mystery, but the photos came from somewhere. They are plainly not taken from a surveillance camera or the like. I think what actually happened is that LIFE magazine got photos of everyone, from family probably, and published the photos without names next to every photo; and the editor who wrote the Wikipedia line above jumped to a conclusion that they are 'unidentified'...whereas actually they were only 'unidentified' in the magazine.

I e-mailed the webmaster; no response yet. I wanted to write this out in the hopes that the text in the article can be corrected, instead of just deleting the link. Tempshill (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I had contacted the Picture Editor (listed in the Life Mag issue)of 25 years ago to find out if there is any way we can get the identities of the passengers. It was amazing to speak with this man in charge from so long ago. He believed that Life never took possession of the photos given to it by the families for use and so the photos and any info regarded the people of the photos would not be archived (present Time-Life Archives). Contacted Time-Life Archives (contracted out to independent company) but received no answer. By the way, the picture editore of 25 years ago is John Loengard, the famous photographer ( sailor kissing french girl at end of WWll etc.)

The 5 minute flight

I think that the "may" should not be in the caption of the Time cover photo. There is no doubt, and no one examining the material has expressed it. It would have been impossible for KAL 007 not to have maintained level flight at 16,424 ft. (5,000 meters) given the multiple reporting at that level - original trackings accepted, used, and published in 1983, radar tracking of ICAO'93. Russian military cummunications of Info 1. papoer of ICAO '93. Here is full account -

There is no doubt according to the official government statements (Secretary of State Shultz, Ambassador Lichtenstein) already quoted that KAL 007 had reached 5,000 meters at 18:30.31. At 18:33/34, according to ICAO '93 already quoted and referenced, KAL 007 is still at level 5,000 meters. At 18:35, according to ICAO '93, allready quoted and referenced, KAL 007 is tracked descending from level 5,000 meters. Unless you want to say that in between 18:30/31 and 18:33,34 and in between 18:33,34 and 18:35 KAL 007 descended and ascended, descended and ascended, or alternatively ascended and descended, ascended and descended (all unsubstantiated), then KAL 007 maintained level flight, for almost five minutes - and thus the title for this section: KAL007's almost five minute post-attack level flightBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) The Modified FDR info that you refer to (Chart 8. BEA) to indicate that the plane is shown not to be in level flight is only of the first 1 minute and 44 seconds of flight. It could not show the level flight which was subsequent. What shows the level flight is the subsequent tracking of flight by radar and the supporting military communicationsBert Schlossberg (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2008 Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)