Coalition casualties in the air campaign (Date 17 January 1991 – 23 February 1991):
75 aircraft ? 52 fixed-wing aircraft and 23 helicopters
Before you meander into some political conspiracy theory, let us just look at the specific claim you are making.
If that is true, the reports should be easily searchable, particularly if it is true as you claimed they were from reporters embedded with the troops. You claim the number of reports you have seen is two. What do you mean by "两次的重复报道"? Does it mean the same story from the same source repeatedly appeared on two different websites? That should not count as two distinct sources.
The fact is that you can not find the source. You have no evidence.
This is no evidence. Nobody making a claim would acknowledge he has a faulty memory, just as a murderer would rarely admit guilt until faced with overwhelming evidence. Besides, it is an experimental fact that people manufacture memory unintentionally.
Google says the reports do not exist and you claim they do. Who do you think people will believe?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your memory cannot even count as ordinary evidence not to mention extraordinary.
Let us suppose the reports do exist. You and I and many others do think this is an extraordinary claim. Again, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You said "我不是说美国说的和宣传的我都不相信，而是经过思考和分析后在决定是否相信。也就是说，无论谁说什么都不盲从。特别是在能够对我思想中造成概念性影响的事件，必须经过分析才接受。" I applaud your principle. But you do not seem to apply this principle. What kind of analysis have you performed? You have not said a word of it. You said "在此之前，无论多少铺天盖地的润色宣传来辅佐人们去相信某一件事，我都不会轻易的按照事件的表面感觉去盲从的。" So two reports making extraordinary claims makes you believe the truthfulness of it immediately? Does that mean the less evidence there is, and more unlikely the claim is which certainly impresses one more, the more likely you will believe the claim? This contradicts your very principle "特别是在能够对我思想中造成概念性影响的事件，必须经过分析才接受。"
houtou72 发表评论于 2018-06-13 06:29:12
楼主可用以下关键词查一查：List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War。 我得到的是非常详细的不同时间的列单，和我的印象吻合。
So you do not have any reference. This together with "我认为显然网上能公布的数据有所隐瞒", what makes you think "美军在当天的攻击行动中仅仅几个小时就损失了近100 架直升机" is not the product of your faulty memory? Does "那个时候读到的战地记者采访的、美参战的飞机驾驶员" even exist?