> With respect Ned, three factors (my contempt for journaliars,
> Fox's long standing reputation for placing good stories before
> facts (and generally stirring the effluent wherever possible),
> and the general tone of that piece) lead me to believe that
> the only real accuracies on that page are likely to be the date
> and the claim that the picture features an 'airplane'.

>Ned pizzacheeze.com> wrote in
>news:r1a9749be26v14tsja1u3t7gfrsrff7ljj@4ax.com:

>> The pilots denied they had experienced a bird strike.

>
> With respect Ned, three factors (my contempt for journaliars,
>Fox's long standing reputation for placing good stories before
>facts (and generally stirring the effluent wherever possible),
>and the general tone of that piece) lead me to believe that
>the only real accuracies on that page are likely to be the date
>and the claim that the picture features an 'airplane'.
>
>
>GB, and even the date is subject to verification!

> GB wrote:
>

>> With respect Ned, three factors (my contempt for journaliars,
>> Fox's long standing reputation for placing good stories before
>> facts (and generally stirring the effluent wherever possible),
>> and the general tone of that piece) lead me to believe that
>> the only real accuracies on that page are likely to be the date
>> and the claim that the picture features an 'airplane'.

>
>
> Here's another article regarding the same incident; written with the same
> respect for fact finding. I can't find a source for the actual incident,
> although whatever caused the damage *must* have been felt in the cockpit,
> unless it was damage carried into the air after a drunken preflight.
>
> http://data4science.net/essays.php?EssayID=807
>

> GB wrote:
>

>> With respect Ned, three factors (my contempt for journaliars,
>> Fox's long standing reputation for placing good stories before
>> facts (and generally stirring the effluent wherever possible),
>> and the general tone of that piece) lead me to believe that
>> the only real accuracies on that page are likely to be the date
>> and the claim that the picture features an 'airplane'.

>
>
> Here's another article regarding the same incident; written with the same
> respect for fact finding. I can't find a source for the actual incident,
> although whatever caused the damage *must* have been felt in the cockpit,
> unless it was damage carried into the air after a drunken preflight.
>
> http://data4science.net/essays.php?EssayID=807
>

>Marty wrote:
>

>> GB wrote:
>>

>>> With respect Ned, three factors (my contempt for journaliars,
>>> Fox's long standing reputation for placing good stories before
>>> facts (and generally stirring...