XPost: rec.aviation.piloting, alt.usenet.kooks, rec.arts.poems   
   From: vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.FAKE.net   
      
   "Steve Pope"  wrote in message   
   news:gli7ri$svm$1@blue.rahul.net...   
   > Gary L. Burnore   wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:29 GMT, "vaughn"   
   >>   
   >>wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>"Steve Pope"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:gli2ls$lot$1@blue.rahul.net...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Lookin' more likely   
   >>>   
   >>>   How so?   
   >>>   
   >>They found no evidence of organic matter after the second engine was   
   >>pulled   
   >>from the bottom of the river. Heh.   
   >>   
   >>Of course, they did say they saw evidence of a soft body strike.  So it's   
   >>NOT   
   >>likely.   
   >   
   > The soft body strike was limited to the lip of the engine.  Blades   
   > are apparently intact, according to what I read.  The second engine   
   > did not at first glance ingest a bird,   
      
    The absence of immediate evidence to the contrary does not in any way make   
   " some   
   design flaw or maintenance issue of the other engine" likely.  It is   
   possible I suppose, but not likely.  Remember, "conventional wisdom" is   
   sometimes spectacularly wrong, but it is dangerous to bet against it.   
      
   > but we'll have to wait for   
   > more total information.   
      
      Exactly.   
      
   Vaughn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)