Table of Contents - The Barnes Review

sympathy and concerned attention, no matter if he was actually a
prisoner or not. He is also referred to as the son of a high-ranking
Soviet official.
Be it so, it is a plus for the powers in control, for the average,
unknowing present-day serf has no concept of who the owners and
rulers of the USSR have been, either before or since the 1917 coup.
Zionism, of course, has been running the show and Shifrin is just
another of their tools. He went directly to Israel. Unlike today, in
1970 that was not an easy accomplishment and there had to be a reason.
Supposedly he had volumes of “secret” and “classified” prison
data; do not for an instant think that he surreptitiously and clandestinely
ferreted out anything that was not authorized.
On July 11, 1991, Avraham Shifrin, in his capacity as executive
director, Research Center for Prisons, Psychiatric Prisons and
Forced-Labor Concentration Camps of the USSR issued, from the
Center headquarters in Jerusalem, a six-page press release purporting
to tell the “real” truth and facts concerning the “disappearance”
of flight 007. The six-page report is replete with fundamental errors
of fact and logic.
This counter report of a crash landing for 007 and the subsequent
survival of as many as all of the passengers and crew of the
plane throws wide the flood gates of new speculation—far more than
even the ploy that there were three survivors plucked from the foggy,
foggy dew of the northern Sea of Japan. The flood gates are wide
enough that strong rumor has it that even the JBS, Inc., is going to
open their own investigation; surely based on the fact that they considered
McDonald as “their boy.” However, looking at the muddle of
confusion associated with this approach, whose purpose was to confuse
the goyim, this added stirring of the pot is only to be expected.
The press release from Avraham Shifrin needs now to be looked at
and commented upon in a number of areas.
The Shifrin Report contains many statements that are in error
in their most basic contents and fact. But, before any discussion
of this, it must be kept in mind that the source of the
Shifrin multiple-page release is Zionism. The release came
from a Jerusalem-based Zionist organ and was signed by proven Zionist
Avraham Shifrin.
In the first numbered paragraph of the release it is stated that
the 747 was damaged by two Soviet rockets and that the KAL pilot
contacted “the base” in Tokyo and “requested permission” to descend
to 16,000 feet (from 35,000 feet). The release stated that the pilot
maintained a rate of descent of almost 5,000 feet per minute until
reaching the lower level. Without question this rate would be
unthinkable for any “damaged” aircraft. If the aircraft had been
damaged in any way the very first concern of the aircraft pilot would
be to ascertain what that damage was. He would be under extreme
emergency conditions. The first radio transmission would be to
declare an emergency SOS (m’aidez), on an open, clear, emergency
frequency for any listener to copy and respond. He would absolutely
declare that he had been fired upon by another aircraft. He would
not have asked permission from anyone to do anything. He would
have told all who could hear exactly what he was doing, nothing else.
Partial damage is unbelievable given the type of missile in
question. The missiles fired by Lt. Col. (not Col., as stated in the
Shifrin release) G.N. Osipovich from his Sukhoi-15 (code name
Flagon-F) fighter were up-to-date copies of our Sidewinder and
Falcon infra-red and radar-guided missiles; it might even have been
ones that we manufactured, considering that we have furnished
much of the technology that the Soviets have. To be specific, the designation
for the missiles is: AA-3 “Anab,” AA-6 “Acrid” and AA-7
34 N O V E M B E R / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 3
“Apex.” These are either radar-homing or IR-homing. They are all
deadly accurate and against a non-maneuvering target a direct hit is
99.9 percent assured; and two missiles were fired. Even considering
the slim and outside chance of a near miss, with either or both of the
missiles, even a near miss would be completely destructive to the aircraft.
These missiles are proximity-fused and will detonate upon
reaching the nearest point to the target. The Sukhoi-15 is normally
armed with two air-to-air missiles, one radar controlled and one heat
seeking. It has provisions for four.
In the 1950s, this writer was a project officer and test pilot
involved with both the Sidewinder and Falcon test programs. I have
been directly involved (as a jet fighter pilot) with air-to-air missile
destruction of aircraft. There never has been an aircraft hit by an
armed air-to-air missile that has survived. Destruction has always
been instant, regardless of the type or size of the target. A military
combat aircraft probably has a magnitude increase in survivability
compared to a civilian aircraft, i.e. a Boeing 747. It has been admitted
that the 747 was hit by two, each of which was carrying a warhead
explosive of perhaps 10-15 pounds of the latest RDX, C-4 or
other type of explosive even more deadly.
The preceding commentary was written to give the complete
overview of facts concerning the improbability of the survival
of flight 007. The Shifrin release is an amateur attempt to
promulgate further muddling of what actually happened on
that morning of September 1, 1983. The press release contains many
inconsistencies and many errors in factual reporting. It certainly
appears to have been written in haste and with very little editing or
input by any knowledgeable source.
Even an amateur would not have overlooked some of the
inconsistencies and blatant errors in the release. This writer is
absolutely convinced that the aircraft was instantly and completely
destroyed within seconds of impact by missile or missiles. For discussion,
however, I will bring forward some of the points in error of
the “Shifren Report.”
Paragraph 2 states that the water landing was soft, that the
sea at that point was shallow, that the plane did not sink and the
people disembarked on the emergency floats. There is no such thing
as a soft water landing for any aircraft that was designed to land on
a hard surfaced runway, especially one that has four large engines
hanging from the wings.
Paragraph 2(a) states that an air-defense captain watched
KAL 007 on his radar and photographed its movement from his airdefense
post. Did he photograph the actual aircraft (at night) or did
he photograph the radar screen? If he photographed the radar
screen, did he use a motion picture camera or a still camera? Neither
would in any way be conclusive evidence of an aircraft. In fact, it
could very well be the radar signature of one of the Soviet fighters.
Paragraph 2(b) contains a comment about “experts” contending
that uncontrolled plummeting of the aircraft would only be seen
on radar for two minutes before impact. On the contrary the aircraft,
or parts thereof, would be performing a “falling leaf” descent, flipping,
flopping and turning as a leaf falls from a tree in autumn. It
would take a long time for non-aerodynamic bodies to free fall, especially
sections of metal skin etc.
Paragraph 2(c): The Shifren Report stated that the flight data
recorder did not transmit a homing signal. It did transmit and was
the primary guidance for the Soviet recovery from deep water.
Paragraph 2(d): The press release states that no “mayday” was
heard from the pilot but the pilot reported decompression and was
descending to a “certain altitude.”