Talk:Korean Air Lines Flight 007

An event mentioned in this article is a September 1 selected anniversary.

Apparently they were looking for an excuse. If they were just into protecting their airspace they would have called the pilot as soon as they knew he was off course.

Ah, but such was the climate of those times. --Uncle Ed 22:33 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

I was thinking of including a reference to Gary Moore's song "Murder in the Skies", but I was worried that it might seem trivial.... - Lee M 00:29, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Can someone rewrite the first sentence? It is hard to read. Kowloonese 00:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC).

No it isn't. Abc30 22:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with details here. This flight originates very late at night at JFK. Arrives at Anchorage like 2-3AM the next day. Then after like 2 hours goes on. But... two hours into the flight after Anchorage, there is a day change zone, making it the next day again. Thus, plane located there on September 1 must have originated on August 30, not the 31. Unless, it started right after midnight. But still, would not add up.

Condition of bodies recovered

The part about conspiracy theories asserts that the body count was inconsistent with other 747 crashes, however it fails to point out that KAL 007 burned in while the Air India and South African 747s both exploded mid-air! It should be immediately obvious that a mid-air explosion would result in scattered debris (and badly damaged corpses) while a flight crashing intact (as KAL 007) would result in a very different debris pattern as well as condition of the corpses.

The Izvestia series of 1991 featuring the interviews of the Russian civilian divers(from Murmansk and Svestapol) who visited the underwater site startimg 7 days after the shootdown, clearly show the amazement they fell into at the lack of bodies, body parts, amd luggage. For just a sample - Viyacheslav Popov: “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. Sometimes the thought even occurred: Was it really a passenger plane, or is that a deception? Captain Mikhail Igorevich Girs: “From Captain Girs’ diary: ‘Submergence 10 October. Aircraft pieces, wing spars, pieces of aircraft skin, wiring, and clothing. But—no people. The impression is that all of this has been dragged here by a trawl rather than falling down from the sky…’” “So we were ready to encounter a virtual cemetery. But one submergence went by, then the second, and then the third... During the entire rather lengthy period of our work near Moneron, I and my people had maybe ten encounters with the remains of Boeing passengers. No more than that.” “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.”

On the Possibility of a Safe Water Ditching

Some view the possibility of a relativiely successful water ditching for KAL 007 as negligible. But actually, there has never been a case of an intentional water ditching of passenger plan, prop or jet, in which there have not been survivors- in some cases, many survivors. For documentation of numbers amd percemtages of survivors for all these cases see [1].

CIA connection asserted

User:Stempy81 has added: "KAL was originally a CIA proprietary. USAF wanted to use a civilian plane as 'bait' to test the Soviet reaction to an incursion inside their borders. The flight took them over two Soviet military bases on the island of Sakhalin. 15 minutes behind KAL007 in international airspace was another civilian plane, KAL015, which relayed KAL007's messages to ground control. There are too many inconsistencies with normal procedure for this whole incident to have been accidental." Can you cite a source for this information, and at least mention the source as being the source? (e.g., "According to foo, a well-respected Pentagon official..." or maybe, "According to a fictionalized account of what might have happened, some people currently believe..." Lupinelawyer 23:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concerning flight times

Replying to the question concerning flight times. During Daylight Savings Time (as would have been in August/September, Anchorage, Alaska (Airport: ANC), would have been -8 hours from GMT/UTC. New York would have been -4 hours. Referring to the The Port Authority of NY & NJ China Airlines currently (as of 7/24/2005) flies every other day non-stop from JFK to ANC (flight CI 011) on its way to Taipei, China (TPE). The flight to Anchorage takes 7hrs 20min--leaving JFK at 23:45 Eastern time and arriving at ANC at 03:05 local Anchorage time. Assuming your arrival time of 3:00 am Anchorage time, the plane would have been basically on the same flight schedule as the current China Airlines departing New York ~11:45 pm Eastern Time August 31. By the way, what is your source for the arrival time in Anchorage and the layover time? The best I have found is a narrative that the passengers boarded the plane late in the night toward midnight on August 31 (in Grady's book, p. 507). The shoot-down of the flight was by various sources ~18:30 GMT Sept. 1, some 5 1/2 hours after it took off from Anchorage. For reference, Sakhalin is 14 hours ahead of Anchrorage (Anchorage is -8hr GMT, Sakhalin is +10hr GMT). 13:00 GMT September 1 = 5:00 am (-8 hours) Alaska time = 11:00pm Sakhalin time September 1. If you add 5 1/2 hours to that you get 18:30 GMT Sep 1, but indeed Sakhalin local time is 4:30 am September 2.

Summary:

5:00am ANC 9/1 = 13:00 GMT 9/1 = 11:00pm Sakhalin 9/1 - Depart Anchorage

10:30am ANC 9/1 = 18:30 GMT 9/1 = 4:30am Sakhalin 9/2 - Approximate time of crash

Crossing the International Date Line in the Bering Sea between Alaska and Russia, going west, during Daylight Savings Time, you gain 20 hours (18 between Anchorage and Sakhalin).

Kona1611

Anchorage moved from the GMT-10 zone to GMT-9 zone in the 1983 Alaska time zone consolidation, which most likely means they went to DST (GMT-9) and didn't fall back in October. This would make Anchorage GMT-9 (not GMT-8) in August and September.06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Washington Post Sept 1, 1996 article

There is, supposedly, and article by Washington Post by Alvin A. Snyder that discussed that the tape released by the US immediately following the incident was incomplete, and Snyder claimed that said Su-15 did radio and accomplished the internationally recognized symbol of force landing that all civilian pilots should know. http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/kal-007.htm I cannot locate the article in washingtonpost.com, but in a previous essay that I had written for school, the very same article came up on Lexis Nexis first, in which to speed things up (I was using a telnet interface to LN), I googled for the article. Indeed if someone reconfirmed the existance of this article, it doubts the clearly US point of view presented in this article

Minor detail about 1978 KAL incident

Said KAL was not shot with a missile. It was shot with the onboard gun/cannon, which indeed killed 2 passengers. They were forced down in Murmansk. Quotes were available in microfilm in NYT/WP articles relating to the KAL 007 tragedy.

Aeroflot Suspended in U.S.

In response to User:Cleared as filed, Two things, You can look in any U.S. newspaper during that time, I remember reading articles appearing the the New York Times and the Washington Post so if you check the archives. At the time I also called the Aeroflot office in New York and a recording answering saying that flights are now only operating from Canada. Also you cannot go by the information on the Aeroflot website because that information can be construde as bias, They are not going to list the fact that the United States Government kicked them out and as I recall there were several flights operated each week from Los Angeles, New York and Washington D.C. prior to their license being revoked, The fact that there was a war in Afghanistan had no effect on their U.S. operations because flights only operated to Moscow from these three U.S. Airports. User:Misterrick 06:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC).

I'm not talking about Aeroflot's website, I'm talking about the Aeroflot article here on Wikipedia. I don't know what its source was, and you still haven't posted a source, so what is the factual basis for it other than it's something that you remember from twenty years ago? —Cleared as filed. 05:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, here is a link from the Ronald Reagan archives that states that Aeroflot service to the U.S. was suspended in 1981 due to the Soviet Union's actions in Poland. I think without some evidence to back up your assertion (other than your memory), the statement should come out until it can be properly backed up. —Cleared as filed. 05:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC).

Um... Check what I said, I pointed out that there were articles in the New York Times and Washington Post about this, Unfortuantely my library doesn't have access to the archives of either of these newspapers but I'm sure there's someone out there that can find it. Misterick 07:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC).

Well, I pointed out at least one source that contradicts it. I'd say that puts the burden of proof on you to come up with a source; saying that there were articles twenty years ago without giving us dates or pages isn't really citing a source. I'll take out the statements until we can verify them. —Cleared as filed. 06:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Charles, Here is your burden of proof, From the United States Embassy, Moscow, Russia website (http://moscow.usembassy.gov/links/history.php) go down to September 8, 1983 and you will see that it says "U.S. President introduces sanctions against the Soviet Union in connection with the incident involving a Korean civilian airliner, which violated Soviet airspace and was consequently shot down in the Sakhalin Region. As of September 15, Aeroflot branches in Washington and New York were closed and all American aviation commercial contacts with Aeroflot were banned." Therefore I am reinstating my previous edits since this comes directly from a U.S. Government source. Misterrick 09:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC).

Looks good! I'll add those references to the pages. —Cleared as filed. 13:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Flight callsign

Why is this flight KAL007, not KAL7 that would be the normal way of calling this flight? Usually after the three-letter ICAO code there are no zero prefixes. However, in the ATC conversation they used "Korean Air zero zero seven" which is confusing... KE007 is valid, in IATA codes you do see prefix zeros. 213.243.160.111 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Leading zeroes in flight number (ATC callsign) are very common outside the U.S.06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved this cleanup tag from talk

While the article can be improved, it's not in obvious dire need of cleanup. In any case, tags on articles should be used as a last resort when there are real difficulties sorting out an article - in most cases, the solution to the problem is to hit the "edit this page" button. Enchanter 22:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Number of deaths

The template on this page says 240 passengers and 29 crew died, while the main page tidbit in "On This Day..." says there were 246 passengers and 23 crew.--Methegreat 23:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There were 240 passengers (includes security), 6 dead headers (repostioning KAL employees), 20 cabin crew, and 3 flight crew. 269 total.See for the breakdown with names - [2] Bert Schlossberg

Motivations

IIRC, Bruce Schneier in CRYPTOGRAM (http://schneier.com/crypto-gram.html) stated that the Russian general who gave the order to shoot down the plane was motivated by the fact that the last time something like this happened, the general on-duty did not give such an order and was executed. I cannot find the article however.

Fear of punishment of some sort might have indeed been in the background, but the immediate impetus for the shootdown order was the fact that KAL 007 was about to exit Soviet airspace, and that for the second time. The general in question was Anatoli Kornukov and here are two of his pertinent statements, taken from the transcripts of the Soviet military communications at the time of the shootdown:

1. "Kornukov: (6:14) Comrade General, Kornukov, good morning. I am reporting the situation. Target 60- 65 (KAL 007 "intruder") is over Terpenie Bay (Terpenie Bay is on the east coast of Sakhalin Island. KAL 007 had thus successfuly traversed Kamchatka, after entering over Petropavlovsk, and crossing the Sea of Okhotsk, it was about to enter Sakhalin's airspace.) tracking 240, 30 km from the State border, the fighter from Sokol is 6 km away. Locked on, orders were given to arm weapons. The target is not responding, to identify, he cannot identify it visually because it is still dark, but he is still locked on.

Kamenski: We must find out, maybe it is some civilian craft or God knows who.

Kornukov: What civilian? [It] has flown over Kamchatka! It [came] from the ocean without identification. I am giving the order to attack if it crosses the State border. "

2. "Kornukov: Carry out the task, destroy [it]!

Gerasimenko: …Comrade General… Gone to attack position.

Kornukov: (6:24) Oh, [obscenities], how long [does it take him] to go to attack position, he is already getting out into neutral waters. Engage afterburner immediately. Bring in the MiG 23 as well... While you are wasting time, it will fly right out."

For full context, see - [3]

Two Important Points to Research

SAFE LANDING IN THE PHILIPPINES? I have a distinct recollection of reading a newspaper article (most likely a wire service story) in a local paper (The Reading Eagle - Reading, PA) a day or two BEFORE the shootdown, the headline of which was something like "Missing Plane with US Congressman lands safely in the Philippines."

The gist of the article was that there was concern that a plane with the Congressman was missing (since the flight path was near Soviet space) and that there was now relief that the plane had landed safely in the Philippines. For that reason I found it particularly curious when the plane was shot down the next day. I remember wondering how, after the initial concern and safe landing, the plane had 'accidentally' wandered into Soviet air space.

There was also some mention of the Congressman's agenda having something to do with gathering information on restricted areas in Soviet territory and possibly playing a game of 'chicken' with a plane full of civilians.

Needless to say my memory does not comport with the current article which states that the plane was on it's initial flight from Alaska when shot down. Perhaps someone with access to US wire service archives from the time period could further research the existence of such a report.

VOICE COCKPIT RECORDING ALTERED? I recall reading an article in "Scientific American" sometime after the cockpit voice recorders were released that analyzed the tape and clearly showed transient blips indicating that the recording, as released by the US gov't, had been edited. The conclusions of this article would perhaps add to our understanding of this unfortunate incident.Nomdelapaix 13:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Please include citations using the <ref> tags. see below, see the book, etc are not encyclopedic in nature. For example (ignoring the inconsistencies in quote usage), instead of saying:

President Reagan dismissed such theories as Soviet propaganda. However, independent researchers published books which, at the very least, seem to substantiate some of the details of the allegations. For instance, David Pearson notes in his book (KAL 007: The Cover-Up) that the flightpath of KAL 007 "passed over Soviet missile-testing areas, over the sites of several large phased-array radars, and near the Soviet submarine pens at Petropavlovsk" on the Kamchatka peninsula. Similarly the plane passed within a few dozen miles of Soviet air and navy bases on Sakhalin island, and if it had not been shot down as it left Sakhalin airspace, Pearson says, it was "on a heading that would have taken it eventually over the Soviet military center at Vladivostok."

It would be easier to read, in line with [policies], and more succinct to state:

President Reagan dismissed such theories as Soviet propaganda. However, independent research seems to substantiate some of the details of the allegations. For instance, the flightpath of KAL 007 "passed over Soviet missile-testing areas, over the sites of several large phased-array radars, and near the Soviet submarine pens at Petropavlovsk" on the Kamchatka peninsula. Similarly the plane passed within a few dozen miles of Soviet air and navy bases on Sakhalin island, and if it had not been shot down as it left Sakhalin airspace, it was "on a heading that would have taken it eventually over the Soviet military center at Vladivostok." and add <ref> </ref> tags here for David Pearson's book KAL 007: The Cover-Up

Popular culture citation request tags

BQZip01, a few days ago you tagged most of this section for citations. As the person who added most of the information on the British documentary drama Coded Hostile, I'm at a loss as to exactly what you think needs verifying in this particular case. Nick Cooper 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

All I am requesting is a simple reference to the claims stated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Which "claims" specifically? Either identify precisely which part or parts of the paragraph you think need a citation/s, or I'm removing the tag. Nick Cooper 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No response - am removing tags. Nick Cooper 21:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I added geocoded coordinates to the article. I used the coordinates where the attack occurred rather than where the plane crashed because I think the former is more significant, and because this location is known with more certainty. Various sources list different locations for the wreckage. I also changed the "crashed 55 km off of Moneron Island" info that has been in the article since the very beginning, because it is wrong from every source I've seen. The missile attack occurred about 55 km off the island, and every source lists locations closer to the island where it crashed (though they vary). --GregU 19:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

"Criticism of Conspiracy Theories" seems to be written as one person's rant against conpiracy theories. Any ideas on fixing it?Generalcp702 14:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Hershs investigative reporting is in the conspiracy theory section but from what i understand the basis of his assertions has been proven correct. The CIA even cited his work in a history of the Korean Air event. https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/coldwar/source.htm#HEADING1-12 -dh

Split?

I agree with the above that the section reads like a rant, but at the same time, the whole conspiracy theory section is way too long and really overshadows the factual aspects of the article. I would like to propose a split off of that material to its own separate article, say Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories. Thoughts? Akradecki 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, article will be much clearer and noone mistake theories with facts. Piotr Mikołajski 14:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not be opposed with a split as long as there are good links from one to the other, and the section on the Theory of Passenger and Crew Survival remain where it is now. This is because the Conspiracy section (and its criticism) has to do properly with conspiracy involved in the deviation of KAL 007 into Soviet territory and responsibility for that, while the issue of survivors, while perhaps involving possible cover-up, has nothing to do with the implications for the deviation. In addition, much of the basis for the possibility of survivors, namely, the duplicity of the Soviet Union in participating in the Search and Rescue missions while they had already located the plane they had downed and had already gotten the black box, etc., has already been acknowledged by the Russian Federation and U.S. Naval sources. So there is little "conspiracy " in it. Bert Schlossberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.222.66 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but since you're quoted in the section, I smell WP:COI very strongly, especially since that section is not properly sourced. Akradecki 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would support a split. There is so much conspiracy theory stuff that I had to give up reading it. There's precious little hard facts about this plane, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to talk about in the article. Split it off, and just have a paragraph or two in the main article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Extreme copyright violation

The section The condition of passengers and crew immediately after missile detonation is an almost direct cut-and-paste from the reference URL, i.e. [4] Nick Cooper 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this, not just for copyvio, but also as it has some serious POV and COI issues. Akradecki 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

INS is...

in simple terms a navigation system that finds direction and distance traveled by recording the input of various inertial (motion) sensors and compares the data with a pre-loaded flightplan to keep an aircraft on-course. The inertial navigation system uses an inertial measurement unit to gather the inertial data. Some of you are saying, so what's the point? The point is there doesn't need to be a beacon or any communication with the ground and has no "range".

I also removed a CN tag on the sentence saying a lack of situational awareness etc. caused the crew to not realize they were off course. If the instruments weren't working at all, the pilots would have probably mentioned it for the CVR to record. Anynobody 06:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Flight After The Attack

Since ICAO 1993, the second repport, it can no longer be maintained that KAL 007 made an immediate spiral descent until hitting the water - the scenario presented by the books (almost all) written prior to 1993. Here are the facts as presented by ICAO 1993 and the known and accepted radar trackings :

"After this fast, 5 minute spiral descent, but still consistent with standard flight procedure in the circumstances, KAL-007 then remained airborne for at least about 7 more minutes, en route to a location in Soviet territorial waters between Moneron Island and Sakhalin Island. KAL-007 was thus airborne for a total post-attack flight time of at least 12 minutes. Moreover, KAL-007's altitude after a total of 9 minutes of flight was about 5,000 feet.

"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 also 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 [16,424 feet]. At 1838 hours [12 minutes after being hit] the Korean plane disappeared from the radar screen.'"

Republican Staff Study/"CIA Report", pg. 43 (quoted exact, including bracketed comments and underlining) (Note: the statement of 18:30 hours was later corrected to 18:31 hours.) Concerning KAL 007's ability to level out at 5000 meters and maintain a level flight of 4 to 5 minutes, from transcripts included with the 1993 ICAO Report Information Paper No. 1, pg. 134-135: Gen. Kornukov (18:32): Tell the 23 [MiG]... afterburner. Open fire, destroy the target, then land at home base.

Lt. Col. Gerasimenko (acting commander, 41st Fighter Regiment, viewing radar): Roger

Kornukov: Altitude... What is the altitude of our fighter and the altitude of the target?

Quickly. The altitude of the target and the altitude of the fighter!

...

Why don't you say anything? Gerasimenko!

...

Gerasimenko (18:33): Gerasimenko. Altitude of target is 5,000.

Kornukov: 5,000 already?

Gerasimenko (18:34): Affirmative, turning left, right, apparently it is descending. "The last plotted radar position of the target was 18:35 hours at 5,000 meters." (ICAO 1993, pg. 53, para. 2.15.8) Concerning the location of KAL 007's descent, precisely over the island of Moneron, from transcripts included with the 1993 ICAO Report: Gen. Kornukov (18:36): ...you know the range, where the target is. It is over Moneron... (ICAO, 1993, Information Paper No. 1, pg. 136.)

Lt. Col. Novoseletsky (commander, Smirykh Air Force Base) (18:39): So, the task. They say it has violated the State border again now?

Flight Controller Titovnin: Well, it is the area of Moneron, of course, over our territory.

Lt. Col. Novosletsky: Get it! Get it! Go ahead, bring in the MiG 23 (ICAO, 1993, Information Paper No. 1, pg. 90.)

Where did this come from, can you provide a link to the source? Anynobody 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well here we go again. I am answering this question but will understand if it is deleted. My source is my own (That is, the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors) website. But the sources of this Source are primarily 1. the both parts of ICAO 1993 Report - the report itself and the "Information Papers" handed in to the ICAO, and appended to the Report, primarily by the Russian Federation. I might add that this was at a time that the "good" Russian Federation was trying to distance itself from the "bad" Soviet Union. 2. The draft report of 1991 on KAL 007 of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

The context and explicating material, that is the link to the source you requested are http://www.rescue007.org/escape.htm and http://www.rescue007.org/faq.htm#7 . When in this Source from my website I refer to any of the Sources behind the source, I give full info for locating, so it can be checked out. Here is the link for the full Committee on Foreign Relations Report http://www.rescue007.org/docs/CIAReport.pdf and here is the link that tells about the report, history, etc. http://www.rescue007.org/faq.htm#8

Bert Schlossberg, Director, International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors

I had a look at the .pdf report you linked. The document seems suspicious to me for a few reasons, and before I say how I want to make it clear I'm not implying you have done anything wrong just that verification is necessary.

1. If it is real, the report doesn't indicate it has been declassified or released to the public. This means that posting it could be a violation of national security.
2. The way the report is formatted doesn't look like other CIA reports I've seen, here are some examples: CIA library at cia.gov
3. The redaction of the intended audience of the report but not some of the information inside is unusual for a CIA report, but not for someone trying to create an "official" looking report.

Also I couldn't locate the ICAO report on their website. I remember there were two reports, but can't remember when the second one came out or exactly what it said so before we talk about it in the article a copy should be located. Anynobody 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've commented already on Bert's IP talk page, but to reiterate what I've said there, OR simply has no place here, and the material I've seen so far from his site is distinctively POV, and fairly consistently fails WP:V. The CIA report is a good case in point. Odd that the "top secret" banner is in red rather than black (or at least on off-red - this looks way to "added" with a font color, rather than the slight deterioration of a scan)...either there's a serious violation of federal law here, or it's a fake. I, too, don't believe it looks like other CIA reports that have been released to the public. At a minimum, it should have stamped notations of the releasing official. Basically, these simply have no place on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Akradecki 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It also, goes against WP:SELF to reference one's own off-wiki research. Anynobody 02:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki,

You are right and you are wrong. I have pointed out elsewhere, and have also provided for explanation http://www.rescue007.org/faq.htm#8 that the "CIA" report is in reality the draft report on KAL 007 (1991) of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. "CIA" is used on the document, also with the CIA cover letter, as it was presented to the South Korean Legislature by opoposition member of Parliament Sonn Se-il. And that is how the media treated it for the short time that it was in the spotlight. The above site gives the important steps in the develpment of this document. Senator Jesse Helms, the ranking member of the Republican staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations requested the CIA to verify the information coming from Israel about survivors. This request from the Senator and the info received as partial verification was the basis, According to Rear Admiral Bud Nance, who headed the Committee staff under Helms, for the appeal to Yelstin to reveal more about the matter of survivors, including the whereabouts of Cong. McDonald and the location of the camps, and the military communications. Yeltsin responded in 1992 with black box tapes and the military communications. Here is Nance's letter http://www.rescue007.org/nance_letter.htm and here is Helm's letter to Yeltsin http://www.rescue007.org/helms_letter.htm. The site mentioned at first will tell the whole history as presently known. When we refer to the Report, we mostly indicate the stages by The "CIA"/ Republican Staff Study 1991 (draft) of the Committeee on Foreign Relations. The "CIA" in quotes is for identifying purposes rather than a claim of authorship. Helm's appealed to the CIA for verication as he did to the NSA. 89.139.222.66 11:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg

But my main point still isn't addressed: you haven't provided any verifiable sources for this material outside of your own website. Akradecki 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to supply what I can. Just to note, I am not the only or first to write about KAL 007 Survivors. Robert Lee did so in three editions of the New American. (His first two were published before ICAO '93). Of course, my main claims are based on ICAO '93 and the Republican Staff Study as well as my own research findings. I have supplied the references for these. The History Channel Documentary on KAL 007 had a shot of my book "Rescue 007: The Untold Story of KAL 007 and its Survivors" [5] alongside of the others that disagree with some aspect of the accepted story, such as Pearson and R.A. Johnson, so I guess I am considered as one of the Conspiracy theorists The book has been translated into Korea and published there. The History Channel also had a shot of KAL 007 in level flight for a few seconds representing the over 4 minutes of level flight I had advised the documentary company about. Accuracy in Media (AIM) has sponsored two of my appearances, one a press coference in Washington, which saw the appearance of a Russian Embassy staffer, and the other a speech (attended by among others a Committee on Foreign Relations staffer) outlining my findings. Accuracy in Media has also written 3 or 4 pieces (which you make reference to one in the external links) about my findings and appearances. I have spoken on about 15 talk shows, some local wayouts and some solid syndicated talk shows that devoted full show time to me. I seem to have a following among some of the POW/MIA people and groups as there is a parallel course we take re: our people who are not returned. And I often appear on other websites. The largest aviation website in the world [6] (over "200,000 unique viewers daily") is featuring 7 of my articles on KAL 007 (the only article serial they have ever featured). I think that's about it. 89.139.222.66 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg

Ok, you're still not getting it...is anyone else, besides you, reporting on this? AIM, Airliners.net, these still are all about or from you. Please go read WP:V and WP:A. Wikipedia is about the facts only, and only those that can be corroborated from muliple, reliable sources. What really bothers me is that you keep referring to ICAO '93 as if it has new or different information. I just read the link below to the report and even quoted it here. ICAO '93 reaffirmed the original findings. I can find no other gov't reports on the web, other than those on your website, which look real suspect. The material doesn't even come close to passing academic muster, which is really essential to have a reliable encyclopedia. Akradecki 13:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if we can take a little bit different of an approach. Give me two of the "solid syndicated" talk shows...names, air dates, etc. Are there any magazines or newspapers that have written anything about you or your organization - not articles that you yourself have written - I need article name, author name, publication name and pub date. With these kinds of refs, then we can at least state that this theory exists and is getting reported on by multiple non-trivial sources. Akradecki 16:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki, I hope that I don't come off as pedantic but this is the only way I know how to approach the doubts about my sources. I have before me the hard copy of the complete ICAO '93. I received it from ICAO simply by asking it of them. I did not tell them that I was a family member of two of the victims. I think that anyone can therefore obtain it. It is identical to the one I obtained years ago via the American association of the families of the victims. . It is comprised of 2 parts- the first, the general report and the second, Information Paper No. 1 The major part of this latter seciton is entitled Transcript of Communications, USSR Air Defence Command Centers on Sakhalin Island. These contain the real time communications related to the stalking, shooting down of KAL 007 and the futile chase by support fighters, the descent of Moneron Island, and the SAR missions to Moneron. This is part of the material that Senator Helms requested of Boris Yeltsin. These are, in the main, the source for my "theory". The transcripts themselves, have, for the most part, hour, minute and seconds of the transmissions, so they are easily coordinated with the radar and Black box tapes. When ever I have quoted, I believe, I have supplied the reference for the Information Paper for verifiability check. ICAO which published both report and Russian Federation copies of the Soviet military transmissions of the Information Paper, as far as I can see, used the transmissions only for the matters of Air Navigation. And that is how they titled the subsection in which the Information Papers are found. But these transcripts of the transmissions are a gold mine of valuable information relating to the aftermath of the missile attack. For instance, KAL 007 reached 5,000 meters, at 18:31. Further, the reports states that radar tracking show that it descended from this altitude at 18:35. But it is the military communications of the transcripts that support this graphically : "Kornukov: Altitude... What is the altitude of our fighter and the altitude of the target? Quickly. The altitude of the target and the altitude of the fighter! ... Why don't you say anything? Gerasimenko! ... Gerasimenko (18:33): Gerasimenko. Altitude of target is 5,000. Kornukov: 5,000 already? Gerasimenko (18:34): Affirmative, turning left, right, apparently it is descendin". The result of this combining of sources provides us with a picture that the Report by itself does not. KAL 007, contrary to the accepted version, did not dive, or spin out of control, or explode, but it maintained a level altitude for over 4 minutes, only to descend in spirals over the only possible place for a water ditching near land in the whole 'Tatar Straits - tiny 4 1/2 mile long Moneron Island. That the ICAO report itself does not do the job of combining, that I speak about, of the material that they themselves published does not take away from the fact that the transcripts are published, verifiable material from a reputable organization - ICAO! I do not say infallible, as I contest some of their conclusions such as no survivors (and you are right, ICAO 93 carries on the same conclusion as '83). But ICAO is reputable. Following this procedure of combining the published (and public) transcripts, I have presented what is really very evident (and verifiable) from the material - after the descent over Moneron, there were the missions just minutes after the shootdown to Moneron itself by KGB patrol boats, Civilian ships that were then, at the time near Moneron, and rescue helicopters. This all took place while The Soviet Union claimed that they knew nothing of the plane, its whereabouts, or disposition, These transcripts also give force to the After Action Report of the Commander Piotti (quoted elsewhere) that he thought that they were searching in the worng place (international waters) and that the plane was to be found in Soviet territorial waters.. Well, the transcripts give force to his words as they show that the Soviets knew all along where the plane was and had within minutes sent out the rescue team. I say all this, to show that the picture of what happened becomes totallly different from the accepted version and this change takes place by examining material up till now neglected but material that is plublished, publically accessible, verifiable, and that from a reputed organization - even if the publishing organization itself has left the ore unmined..

One other point, It is not unusual for a recognized conspiracy theorist to be the only one to hold to his theory, and hence no other books precisely developing his theory. This is in the nature of things.Thus Michel Blum and his Incident at Sakhalin.

About me: December 6, 2001: Put it to Putin, Reed Irvine, Accuracy in Media AIM Report #21. [7] November 16, 2001: Questions for President Putin, Reed Irvine, Accuracy in Media Weekly Column. [8] November 1, 2001: Let's Ask Putin, Reed Irvine, Accuracy in Media Weekly Column. [9]

Interviews (2 out 17):

Frank foster Show, syndicated over 100 stations nationwide, June 29, 2002: Bert Schlossberg interviewed by Frank Foster on Wealth of a Different Kind, Frank Foster Show

February 15, 2002 (evening): Bert Schlossberg interviewed by Dr. Stanley Monteith, Radio Liberty. List of Stations - http://www.radioliberty.com/frequency.htm . This is not an advertisement. This is in line with support for my work from a recognized media source - [10]

Akredecki, Than you for your time and patience with me!

89.138.16.137 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg

We'd probably need to have a WP:RFC on radioliberty.com and aim.org as non-trivial WP:RS, because they both look for different reasons to me unsuited for WP:N or WP:RS.

The ICAO report would be most welcome, if you have a scanner perhaps you could scan the hardcopy. If you don't have a scanner you could consider taking it to a Kinkos and they'll scan it for a fee. It would be beneficial for you because you'd have a digital backup of the hardcopy and could also post it on your site. Anynobody 00:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the ICAO report would be nice to have access to, but also please be aware that ICAO documents, as UN (rather than U.S.) documents, are not necessarily in the public domain. For instance, all the material on their website is under copyright.

As for AIM and Radio Liberty, a quick look shows that RL can't be considered unbiased. AIM seems to be useable as a legit secondary source. Of course, we can report what even extreme publications report, for instance, we did it this way on the EA990 article, where we note that some radical (definitely biased!) Islamic pubs reported on their take of the incident. Akradecki 01:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern about copyright violation, however it was my understanding that Wikipedia is non-profit and as long as we source it to the ICAO we should be in compliance:

unless such activity is solely for educational or other non-commercial purposes, and also provided the source is fully acknowledged.

The UN, so far as I've seen, is ok with distribution of their documents so long as nobody is making money and they are acknowledged. Anynobody 01:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters, since the question had come up about Information Paper 1. which contains many of the transcripts I have been using, Perhaps I could immediately scan the cover page to this and a sample. Should I scan and and send to you? to where? Post here on the discussion? What do you suggest? The suggestion about scanning the whole report as digital backup is good. I could then have referred directly to the Report instead through my website. 89.138.16.137 04:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg

There's no copyright issues for citing and quoting, in an attributable way, from a paper, just not copying and pasting wholesale. You might want to read our licensing through, though. Under that license, people can use our material for any purpose, private or commercial. Everything you write here falls under that license. So, anything limited to educational or other non-commercial purposes can't be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia, in fact, prides itself on being the free Encyclopedia..."free" meaning not just that you don't have to pay to access, but free to be used as well, and we are really strict on keeping copyrighted material out of our articles. So, for the ICAO report, we can quote from it, and we can cite it. And we most certainly should. Reffing the report would be much more preferrable to reffing your website, where applicable. Akradecki 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, it's sound advice and indeed I have read it. I upload my own images so I was sure to read it carefully in order to know what I was getting into. Generally you are correct about cutting and pasting when it comes to copyrighted materials, however there are some cases where the material is copyrighted but not all rights reserved such as UN materials. When they don't want cutting and pasting by anyone you'll see very simple copyright info: Copyright <year> <copyrightholder>, all rights reserved which means don't use this material outside of fair use guidelines.

I'm a bit concerned though because the non-commercial nature would imply he couldn't post it on his site. Given the amount of work I think scanning it would be I think we should probably look elsewhere for the report.(I figured we'd all benefit, he'd have a new source for his site and we'd have access to the report.) Anynobody 05:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Found 2nd ICAO report summary

http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/trivia/kal_flight_007.htm Second ICAO report summary of KAL 007 shoot down 1993. Anynobody 01:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done!! What I think is significant in this document is the statement:

“ In the course of the investigation, all practical steps were taken to confirm the authenticity of the communications tapes. The material on the communications tapes and the CVR and DFDR tapes showed no evidence of contradiction with known information and correlated well with other sources of data. ”

Akradecki 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

I'm creating an image¹ of KAL 007 to include, I've noticed that several other air disaster articles also don't have pictures of what the aircraft looked like so if this works out I'll probably do more. This is what I have so far. (¹ I'm creating the image from a 3d model I created using AutoCAD and Paint Shop Pro, so the angle of view, and background are not necessarily going to look like this.) Anynobody 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Idle observations

I just took a look at this article and the conspiracy theory one. One thing I find astonishing is that this sentence "It is generally believed that KAL 007 was mistaken for a USAF RC-135 that was flying a routine electronic intelligence mission northeast of Kamchatka at about the same time[citation needed]. " appears only in the conspiracy article, not here. Not even a mention of the undisputed-at-the-time fact that there was an RC-135 very close to KAL007 is in the main article! I took a look here because I happened to take KAL007 a short while before the incident (and took KAL 008 going the other way a little while after - one of maybe 3 passengers in a transoceanic 747, an odd experience.). Also, a friend of a friend was killed on it and I took a mild interest in what happened. FWIW my conclusion was that on the basis of available facts from the NY Times and mainstream outlets, Hersh's account was basically OK, but had some inconsistencies tending to favor the official US story - I can't remember what they were, and that RW Johnson's account (I have the book somewhere, maybe will use it here if I can find it) looked better, more self-consistent, after a very quick glance much later, after I had mostly lost interest. I remember that the facts about the nearby RC135 were treated at length in Hersh's New Yorker articles that he made the book from (and many, practically all other contemporary sources). IIRC, it was close enough at one point that the two planes would have been indistinguishable on radar. Any account that doesn't mention it is highly suspect and just shows the interesting way that history can get rewritten. Is there no good, reliable web source for the RC-135 presence? John Z 08:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually in the process of finding some more specific information about the Cobra Ball like it's callsign, base, etc. If you know anything about it please don't hesitate to share. Thanks, Anynobody 08:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason the RC-135 isn't yet in the main article isn't that it isn't important, it's just that refs that meet WP:V haven't been dug up yet. If you have reliable refs, by all means, add the information. Akradecki 13:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough to support the sentence above and more was in Hersh's New Yorker articles. Also in his book of course, iirc, which I only remember looking at in a bookstore. Perhaps a reference to one of them would do for the moment? I doubt I could find anything in my possession right now; I personally haven't read anything on this incident in decades. But it is astonishing that there is nothing but Mr. Schlossberg's site on the web that mentions it. If this is true, it casts doubt in my mind as to the reliability and completeness of whatever web sources the article is based on.John Z 20:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally that the whole matter of the RC-135 is well established and really has nothing to do with conspiracy. The U.S. has already acknowledged the RC-135 in the area but has maintained that it was no closer than 70NM from KAL 007 at any point. Yes there are websites that give the pertinent info concerning the RC-135. Again, I hate to say it, both of my contribution. This first one was a result of an accompanying crew member's (return flight from that mission) report to me and the Committee- [11] . The second was also from people connected with the RC-135 missions and that particlular mission - [12] . Who is the friend of your friend? Is he listed here- [13] ? Perhaps yoiur friend would like to write something about him - to make him for others as a real person and not just a statistic. 89.138.16.137 09:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg

Here is a fuller account of that RC-135 in the context of the whole flight and in the context of intelligence issues - [14]. 89.138.16.137 12:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Bert Schlossberg

I agree that the Cobra Ball (RC-135 variant in question) should be discussed, and actually the escalation in probing Soviet air defenses prior to the incident probably should be mentioned too in order to provide context. (This is assuming satisfactory sources can be found). Anynobody 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to be picky, but I think this is important. First, I'd like to see a reliable source that identifies the aircraft as a Cobra Ball. There are a number of ELINT XC-135s...do we know for sure it was an RC, and if it was, that it was a Cobra Ball mission-configured aircraft? Let's not just assume, because then we might be perpetuating misinformation. I'm not at all opposed to including this info in the main article - it should, in fact, be included, I just want it to be accurate. The New Yorker refs, or even one of them, would be fine, but I have no access to them at the moment. Akradecki 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You aren't being picky, I saw the Unsolved History show on Discovery and they specified the RC-135S which by itself isn't the greatest source, but I also happened upon information about Soviet tests of the SS-25 near the time KAL was shot down making the presence of a Cobra Ball seem plausible to me. (I'm looking for that info of course). Anynobody 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Normally I steer away from these kinds of discussions, but as Akradecki can attest, I sometimes do. My father flew on "The Ball," as it was called by her crew. It was, and still his, highly classified, but I will do what I can to answer any questions. My observations so far in this discussion:

• "I was actually in the process of finding some more specific information about the Cobra Ball like it's callsign, base, etc." - Anynobody

• The Ball was stationed at Shemya AFB in the Aleutian Island chain. Callsigns change and I doubt very much that they keep them for very long. If you have any other questions, please ask here or my talk page.

• "...the escalation in probing Soviet air defenses prior to the incident probably should be mentioned too..."

• It should also be mentioned that the crew size of these aircraft is very large, the plane itself is large, no defenses, not fast, and really isn't the ideal airframe to probe defenses.

• "First, I'd like to see a reliable source that identifies the aircraft as a Cobra Ball."

• So would I, but I do not see any reason for any other RC-135 airframe to be in that vicinity.

• "There are a number of ELINT XC-135s...do we know for sure it was an RC, and if it was, that it was a Cobra Ball mission-configured aircraft?"

1. The Cobra Ball is a MASINT aircraft, not ELINT.
2. As you know, they don't just "configure" an aircraft before takeoff for a Ball mission. It is a specifically modified airframe (just to be clear).

• "Let's not just assume, because then we might be perpetuating misinformation. I'm not at all opposed to including this info in the main article - it should, in fact, be included..."

• The fact that the area that the Ball flew in is near this route is a matter of public record, but as to your basic assertion, I couldn't agree more. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to say the Cobra Ball by itself was probing Soviet air defenses. The source from cia.gov described incidents of our aircraft probing their network during exercises. That source now seems to be unavailable from them now, fortunately I created a backup and it's still available in Google's cache. link here. Anynobody 01:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ICAO Report

This - " ^ a b http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?icao/en/trivia/kal_flight_007.htm Second ICAO report of KAL 007 shoot down 1993", from the References, is not the Second ICAO report, as indicated. It is the 4 page news release about it. The ICAO report itself is 65 pages for the first part, and 208 pages for the second part (Information Paper 1., including "Transcript of Communications, USSR Air Defence Command Centres on Sakhalin Island")