Here is a record of some of the very early dismissals by various officials on the possibility of any form of wrong doing:

On December 12, 1985, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, Robert Sims: "We have no indications of explosions prior to the crash or of hostile action". (see Exhibit 5)

On December 12, 1985, White House spokesman Larry Speakes: "Initial reports indicate no evidence of sabotage or an explosion in flight". (see Exhibit 5)

On December 12, 1985, an RCMP officer at the scene: "There is nothing to indicate an act of terrorism." (see Exhibit 5)

On December 12, 1985, Transport Minister Don Mazankowski in response to a question asking if there was any foul play: "We have no indication at all". (see Exhibit 6)

On December 12, 1985, press spokesman for Mazankowski: "There is no evidence that the plane blew up before it crashed". (see Exhibit 6)

On December 12, 1985, a U.S. Defense Department spokesman: "There was no evidence of sabotage". (see Exhibit 8)

On January 9, 1986, the CASB's Chief Investigator Peter Boag in response to a question about eyewitness reports: "There is no evidence to support them". (see Exhibit 9)

For these officials to use the terms "indication", "evidence"' or "initial reports" at this early stage borders on the absurd. If the investigation had not even begun, what "evidence", "indication" or "initial report" were these officials referring to?