The Crash of the U-2 on November 20, 1963

Greg Parker · February 28, 2009

So you think Hyde III, the people he spoke to and the head of his father’s ground crew are being duplicitous? It seems like you are looking for an excuse to discount their info just because it contradicts your theory. I have also relied on contemporary press accounts.

No. I don't think that. What I think is that they are not good sources on the basis that they may have reason to be duplicitous - or they may in fact have no knowledge of any Northwoods style operation. Recall that the Northwoods document calls for some involved in the operation to be left out of the loop (At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.). As for the press accounts...most reported what they were told to report.

Strawman I never made such a statement [that every utterance by those spoken to about the incident was believable]. My argument doesn't rest so much on believing what they said than the fact that their statements (truthful of not) didn't fit with the scenario you are proposing.

Sorry. I'm having real trouble grasping the concept here. It sounds like you're saying you don't know if they told you the truth or not - the important thing to you is they didn't agree with me?

Speak of your scenario do you think JFK or RFK were "in on" the 12/63 'invasion' of Cuba?

I thought I'd made it clear I don't write scenarios. Not as a general rule - and certainly not on demand.

I have simply been drawing attention to the similarities of this incident to a scenario dreamt up the Joint Chiefs, and the timing of the incident being perfect for a purported invasion.

You are reversing the burden of proof you are the one suggesting something was amiss

No, it doesn't work like that. Len. The burden here is yours. It was YOUR claim that their was nothing which differentiated this incident from other U2 incidents.

1) The Blackbirds page lists only one other that crashed into a body of water (the Sea of Japan 1992 “body was found by Korean Fisherman”, no info about the wreckage).

2) Many of the crashes are listed with no information as to whether the body or wreckage were recovered

That's your problem. Prove the Hyde incident was not extraordinary as far as U2 incidents go by finding the data.

3) According to contemporary news reports the “wreckage” of Hyde’s U-2 was located the next day.

Happy to take your word for it though a cite would be appreciated.

It should be noted that the area around Key West is known for sharks and his son gave an explanation as to why no body was found, he spoke to other U-2 pilots and they don’t think “the parachute ever deployed” (almost forgot his and their word is suspect). Thus once again you are working from a false assumption (see below)

From http://swtexaslive.com/october2006/hyde

At 10,000 feet, and according to procedure that that time, he attempted to eject. However, the sink rate and centrifugal G-forces of the spin during long fall exceeded the operational capabilities of the ejection seat. They doubt his parachute ever deployed.

Was the seat found, Len?

You missed the obvious once again

1) No mention was made of Hyde making such a call to the contrary it was stated he made no distress call and there was no indication he was downed by Cubans.

2) Hyde was far from "the Cuban Island"

3) Most if not all accounts implied or stated outright the plane had over flown Cuba.

4) A U-2 can not dive ("plunge") and remain in control from high altitude.

You will see what I missed and what I didn't in due course.

I seriously doubt it would have been possible to land a U-2 discretely at Eglin.

What you seriously doubt is your only concern. It may be pertinent if you possess greater knowledge of the subject than the authors of the document had. Do you?

Except that news accounts clearly identified the pilot as Joe Hyde Jr. Do you think the Cubans are retarded? How would the Cubans have recovered him before the Americans, why didn’t they say at the time they had his body?

The Cubans (or at least Castro) did whatever was in his best interest. Why for instance, didn't they make a fuss about the breach of airspace? Why did they never find a legal means (or good old loophole) to tear up the Gitmo lease? IN any case, for all the Cubans knew Johnson was his real name and Hyde was the alias. What to believe - ID found on the body or what they would consider Imperialist propaganda reports of the incident?

How exactly does the plane being “highly unsafe” and prone crash help your theory?

It doesn't. Nor does it do it any harm.

Are you backing away from your sabotage theory?

:ice You are the only person who mentioned sabotage. I never said anything about it at all.

That 'equivocation' started the day of the crash, the door was basically shut in the vast majority of papers and barely open in about 15%, they even said there was no indication he was shot sown AFTER his wreckage was located.

:lol: :ice :zzz

And it's goodnight from me, and it's goodnight from him.

Edited February 28, 2009 by Greg Parker

Robert Howard · February 28, 2009

So you think Hyde III, the people he spoke to and the head of his father’s ground crew are being duplicitous? It seems like you are looking for an excuse to discount their info just because it contradicts your theory. I have also relied on contemporary press accounts.
No. I don't think that. What I think is that they are not good sources on the basis that they may have reason to be duplicitous - or they may in fact have no knowledge of any Northwoods style operation. Recall that the Northwoods document calls for some involved in the operation to be left out of the loop (At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.). As for the press accounts...most reported what they were told to report.

Strawman I never made such a statement [that every utterance by those spoken to about the incident was believable]. My argument doesn't rest so much on believing what they said than the fact that their statements (truthful of not) didn't fit with the scenario you are proposing.

Sorry. I'm having real trouble grasping the concept here. It sounds like you're saying you don't know if they told you the truth or not - the important thing to you is they didn't agree with me?

Speak of your scenario do you think JFK or RFK were "in on" the 12/63 'invasion' of Cuba?

I thought I'd made it clear I don't write scenarios. Not as a general rule - and certainly not on demand.

I have simply been drawing attention to the similarities of this incident to a scenario dreamt up the Joint Chiefs, and the timing of the incident being perfect for a purported invasion.

You are reversing the burden of proof you are the one suggesting something was amiss

No, it doesn't work like that. Len. The burden here is yours. It was YOUR claim that their was nothing which differentiated this incident from other U2 incidents.

1) The Blackbirds page lists only one other that crashed into a body of water (the Sea of Japan 1992 “body was found by Korean Fisherman”, no info about the wreckage).

2) Many of the crashes are listed with no information as to whether the body or wreckage were recovered

That's your problem. Prove the Hyde incident was not extraordinary as far as U2 incidents go by finding the data.

3) According to contemporary news reports the “wreckage” of Hyde’s U-2 was located the next day.

Happy to take your word for it though a cite would be appreciated.

It should be noted that the area around Key West is known for sharks and his son gave an explanation as to why no body was found, he spoke to other U-2 pilots and they don’t think “the parachute ever deployed” (almost forgot his and their word is suspect). Thus once again you are working from a false assumption (see below)

From http://swtexaslive.com/october2006/hyde

At 10,000 feet, and according to procedure that that time, he attempted to eject. However, the sink rate and centrifugal G-forces of the spin during long fall exceeded the operational capabilities of the ejection seat. They doubt his parachute ever deployed.

Was the seat found, Len?

You missed the obvious once again

1) No mention was made of Hyde making such a call to the contrary it was stated he made no distress call and there was no indication he was downed by Cubans.

2) Hyde was far from "the Cuban Island"

3) Most if not all accounts implied or stated outright the plane had over flown Cuba.

4) A U-2 can not dive ("plunge") and remain in control from high altitude.

You will see what I missed and what I didn't in due course.

I seriously doubt it would have been possible to land a U-2 discretely at Eglin.

What you seriously doubt is your only concern. It may be pertinent if you possess greater knowledge of the subject than the authors of the document had. Do you?

Except that news accounts clearly identified the pilot as Joe Hyde Jr. Do you think the Cubans are retarded? How would the Cubans have recovered him before the Americans, why didn’t they say at the time they had his body?

The Cubans (or at least Castro) did whatever was in his best interest. Why for instance, didn't they make a fuss about the breach of airspace? Why did they never find a legal means (or good old loophole) to tear up the Gitmo lease? IN any case, for all the Cubans knew Johnson was his real name and Hyde was the alias. What to believe - ID found on the body or what they would consider Imperialist propaganda reports of the incident?

How exactly does the plane being “highly unsafe” and prone crash help your theory?

It doesn't. Nor does it do it any harm.

Are you backing away from your sabotage theory?

You are the only person who mentioned sabotage. I never said anything about it at all.

That 'equivocation' started the day of the crash, the door was basically shut in the vast majority of papers and barely open in about 15%, they even said there was no indication he was shot sown AFTER his wreckage was located.

And it's goodnight from me, and it's goodnight from him.

The document excerpt I am posting from is a very long document, and happened to have the following excerpt, it is presented as an irrefutable account of what the members of the PFIAB attending the meeting knew and when they knew it....

PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA FOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21-22, 1963 [206-10001-10003] 25 pages

Next Mr McCone reported to the board on the recent U-2 crash in the Gulf of Mexico. The whole plane had been found in 9 fathoms of water, 40 miles NW of Key West. The ejector canopy is off and the seat is cut. An empty life raft and a parachute were found. There was no attack made on the aircraft. The pilot reported a successful mission over Cuba, he flew over the Key West station on the return trip and ten minutes later he was down. When the wreckage is raised it should be possible to determine the cause.......

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=16

I have also went back and read this thread from beginning to end........and stick by my initial observations. As I have mentioned before, I do not have the time or the desire to engage Len Colby in his very time consuming "debating school"

posts, as Greg Parker did choose to; and that is not intended as a slight toward Greg. However illogical it may seem for my choosing not to do so, my "logic" is that it resolves absolutely nothing. And the posts by Len however sincere they are in his comments are a textbook example of debate methodology.

I never have regarded my responsibilities as a researcher to include being a debater, if anyone thinks I am a fool for maintaining that attitude, go to alt.assassination.jfk and get yourself an education involving point counterpoint semantics,and you might begin to see why I do not worry, or attempt to explain myself to critics.

The issues involved on this thread represent two schools of thought one is exemplified by Len, who does not acknowledge anything exceptional in the crash of the U-2 and on the other side, myself. I am inflexible in the perceptions I have regarding the loss of the U-2 piloted by Capt. Hyde, for reasons already explained.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Robert Howard

Greg Parker · March 1, 2009

The document excerpt I am posting from is a very long document, and happened to have the following excerpt, it is presented as an irrefutable account of what the members of the PFIAB attending the meeting knew and when they knew it....
PRESIDENT'S FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA FOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21-22, 1963 [206-10001-10003] 25 pages

Next Mr McCone reported to the board on the recent U-2 crash in the Gulf of Mexico. The whole plane had been found in 9 fathoms of water, 40 miles NW of Key West. The ejector canopy is off and the seat is cut. An empty life raft and a parachute were found. There was no attack made on the aircraft. The pilot reported a successful mission over Cuba, he flew over the Key West station on the return trip and ten minutes later he was down. When the wreckage is raised it should be possible to determine the cause.......

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=16

Thanks, Robert, but I have something which refutes what this report states. As I said to Len, "in due course". I need time to put it all together for my website.

I have also went back and read this thread from beginning to end........and stick by my initial observations. As I have mentioned before, I do not have the time or the desire to engage Len Colby in his very time consuming "debating school"

posts, as Greg Parker did choose to; and that is not intended as a slight toward Greg. However illogical it may seem for my choosing not to do so, my "logic" is that it resolves absolutely nothing. And the posts by Len however sincere they are in his comments are a textbook example of debate methodology.

It's not a question of logic, or lack thereof, though I can well understand your point of view. Mine is that the Lens of this world aren't just going to go away if everyone ignores them. In fact, that kind of plays into their hands. They get the last word, and anyone dropping by is only going to see their post - which without some of depth of knowledge could easily be mistaken for legitimate research. Not everyone need engage them. But at least some should.

I never have regarded my responsibilities as a researcher to include being a debater, if anyone thinks I am a fool for maintaining that attitude, go to alt.assassination.jfk and get yourself an education involving point counterpoint semantics,and you might begin to see why I do not worry, or attempt to explain myself to critics.

Actually the best debates took place on alt.conspiracy.jfk between LNer "Jerry" and CT "BishopM" who is a well known figure in these parts. Not only were these debates highly educational - about debating techniques AND about the assassination - they had the added bonus of being highly entertaining. Both participants deserved awards for that alone.

But that aside, I understand your point of view and do not begrudge it, belittle it, or think it wrong-headed. It is simply a matter of personal choice and proceeding in your own way.

The issues involved on this thread represent two schools of thought one is exemplified by Len, who does not acknowledge anything exceptional in the crash of the U-2 and on the other side, myself. I am inflexible in the perceptions I have regarding the loss of the U-2 piloted by Capt. Hyde, for reasons already explained.

Len Colby · March 1, 2009

Comments from my previous posts

“Greg’s replies”

My latest response

So you think Hyde III, the people he spoke to and the head of his father’s ground crew are being duplicitous? It seems like you are looking for an excuse to discount their info just because it contradicts your theory. I have also relied on contemporary press accounts.

“No. I don't think that. What I think is that they are not good sources on the basis that they may have reason to be duplicitous”

What a wondrous example of double speak, you “don’t think that” they “are being duplicitous” but believe “they may have reason to be duplicitous”. Do you even know what you think?

“or they may in fact have no knowledge of any Northwoods style operation. Recall that the Northwoods document calls for some involved in the operation to be left out of the loop (At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart.

The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

).”

Not analogous Hyde III spoke to U-2 pilots who told him how susceptible the plane was to crashing given even a +/- 3% airspeed error could bring it down. This has been confirmed by numerous sources including U-2 pilots. He also spoke to the people who carried out the crash investigation which was presumably based on radar returns and examining the wreckage. A member of the ground crew said it would not have been possible for an outsider to sabotage his plane. Hyde and the others had retired decades earlier and had no reason to be deceptive.

“As for the press accounts...most reported what they were told to report.”

Presumably they would have been “told to report” it looked like the plane had been shot down rather than the opposite if the plan was to blame Cuba.

Strawman I never made such a statement [that every utterance by those spoken to about the incident was believable]. My argument doesn't rest so much on believing what they said than the fact that their statements (truthful of not) didn't fit with the scenario you are proposing.

“Sorry. I'm having real trouble grasping the concept here. It sounds like you're saying you don't know if they told you the truth or not - the important thing to you is they didn't agree with me?”

Your confusion stems from your doctoring of my original quote. The part in the brackets “[that every utterance by those spoken to about the incident was believable]” was YOUR addition. You referred to lies told by “the USG” in the snippet of your previous post I was replying to, thus “they” was obviously “the USG”.

It doesn’t matter so much if it were true that 1) there were no signs that the plane was downed by hostile fire or 2) if it presumably crashed due to a mechanical problem - the fact that the White House, SAC and other military sources were saying these things doesn’t fit with your Northwoods type scenario.

Speak of your scenario do you think JFK or RFK were "in on" the 12/63 'invasion' of Cuba?

“I thought I'd made it clear I don't write scenarios. Not as a general rule - and certainly not on demand.”

Evasion noted and I can’t say that I blame you because answering would present you with a dilemma. I haven’t read the book but based on reviews its evidence (documents and witness statements) indicated an invasion coordinated by the Kennedy brothers. Rejecting their involvement would leave you without much (if any) “evidence” that such an invasion was indeed in the works but accepting their involvement wouldn’t fit with your silly theory.

“I have simply been drawing attention to the similarities of this incident to a scenario dreamt up the Joint Chiefs, and the timing of the incident being perfect for a purported invasion.”

But you choose to ignore the numerous discrepancies between what the JCS proposed and what happened.

You are reversing the burden of proof you are the one suggesting something was amiss

“No, it doesn't work like that. Len. The burden here is yours. It was YOUR claim that their was nothing which differentiated this incident from other U2 incidents.”

We could go back and forth but the only people claiming there was anything odd about the crash are a blogger who calls himself (or herself) “cod$#!t “ (that’s not how they spell it), Robert and you, so sorry the burden is on you. You insinuated that the crash was anomalous, I asked you for evidence. You started from a false premise - that the wreckage was not found.

There is only evidence of one other crash in a body of water thus it is not odd that it MIGHT be the only U-2 crash in which no body was recovered. You have failed to show that was the only bodiless crash. The wreckage from the Sea of Japan crash seems not have been recovered while Hyde’s was. People who know a lot more about this than you (or I) including his son and collegues see nothing odd in Hyde’s body not being recovered. Some think he ejected at 10,000 feet but the parachute didn’t deploy.

3) According to contemporary news reports the “wreckage” of Hyde’s U-2 was located the next day.

“Happy to take your word for it though a cite would be appreciated.”

1) I provided a link, which you saw fit to edit out of your reply, so your request is disingenuous or yet another sign of your confusion.

2) The following comes from the initial post on this thread and was repeated a few times, please try and pay attention:

DMN 11-22-1963

Wreckage of Pilotless U-2 Located

KEY WEST, Fla - (AP) The wreck of a U-2 plane was found Thursday on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. But its cockpit was empty, holding out hope that its pilot Capt. Joe G. Hyde Jr

3) Robert’s post above confirms this as well

It should be noted that the area around Key West is known for sharks and his son gave an explanation as to why no body was found, he spoke to other U-2 pilots and they don’t think “the parachute ever deployed” (almost forgot his and their word is suspect). Thus once again you are working from a false assumption (see below)

“From

http://swtexaslive.com/october2006/hyde

At 10,000 feet, and according to procedure that that time, he attempted to eject. However, the sink rate and centrifugal G-forces of the spin during long fall exceeded the operational capabilities of the ejection seat. They doubt his parachute ever deployed.

Was the seat found, Len?”

What don’t you e-mail his son and ask? Why is that relevant? Acording to report Robert posted it was. Don't you think it possible that free falling 2 miles and or a shark could have removed the body from the chair?

I seriously doubt it would have been possible to land a U-2 discretely at Eglin.

“What you seriously doubt is your only concern. It may be pertinent if you possess greater knowledge of the subject than the authors of the document had. Do you?”

As you well know the scenario in the document called for an agile F101 being used not a cumbersome U-2, are you playing games or are you really that confused? U-2’s are difficult to land and require (or at least required at the time) another U-2 pilot in a chase car radioing instructions to the pilot. Since they only had 2 wheels they flopped over on the runway and ground crews had insert “pogos” into the wings before the plane could be towed away. Apperently it took a couple of guys to pull the wing sticking up down so that the pogo could inserted in the lower wing. Kind of hard to do that in a base not accustomed to U-2 landings without drawing attention.

Except that news accounts clearly identified the pilot as Joe Hyde Jr. Do you think the Cubans are retarded? How would the Cubans have recovered him before the Americans, why didn’t they say at the time they had his body?

“The Cubans (or at least Castro) did whatever was in his best interest. Why for instance, didn't they make a fuss about the breach of airspace?”

Irrelevant but how would “making a fuss” helped them?

“Why did they never find a legal means (or good old loophole) to tear up the Gitmo lease?”

Once again irrelevant but apparently by accepting the rent for the first year or two he was in power Castro lost the right to abrogate the lease. But even if he wanted to he didn’t have the means to expel the US, he was a bit out gunned.

"IN any case, for all the Cubans knew Johnson was his real name and Hyde was the alias. What to believe - ID found on the body or what they would consider Imperialist propaganda reports of the incident?"

Still doesn’t explain why they kept having his body a secret for over a decade. Wouldn’t it have been “in there best interest” to have said they had it sooner then getting his name right?

You have still yet to explain how they would have recovered his from US waters without being noticed by the US.

Your scenario would involve not only involve the above but them forgetting that he had gone under a different name in press reports (which included interviews with his wife and mother) otherwise they presumably would have said his name was Johnson or Hyde.

How exactly does the plane being “highly unsafe” and prone crash help your theory?

“It doesn't. Nor does it do it any harm.”

Of course it does a plane that rarely crashes like a F101 crashing (without any help) is unusual, a plane that frequently crashes doing so isn’t.

Are you backing away from your sabotage theory?

“

You are the only person who mentioned sabotage. I never said anything about it at all.”

Inherent from your theory which seems to be the JCS or some other group in the military made his plane crash. The only other possibility is that “they” shot him down but this was some how missed (or covered up) by the people who found and examined the wreckage.

That 'equivocation' started the day of the crash, the door was basically shut in the vast majority of papers and barely open in about 15%, they even said there was no indication he was shot sown AFTER his wreckage was located.

“

:zzz

”

Typical reply of someone who doesn’t have a better one to offer. You also failed to deal with various other discrepancies notably.

1) Hyde’s plane came down 10x the distance from Cuba called for by Northwoods

2) A U-2 could not dive sharply to simulate a shoot down and be expected to recover

3) Hyde never made a distress call as called for by Northwoods

4) The plane’s entire wreckage as opposed to just a few parts was recovered

5) Northwoods called for an F101 flying in formation with others in order to have witneses, Hyde was flying alone in a U-2

6) Northwoods called for the planes not to enter Cuban airspace because having done so would greatly reduce the incident’s value as a casus belli, press reports indicated Hyde probably or definitely had violated Cuban airspace. Just a moth earlier the Pentagon acknowledged that it had resumed over flights

7) Press accounts and official statement discounted the posibility that the crash was due to hostile fire

EDIT - Typos fixed / formatted for clarity

Edited March 2, 2009 by Len Colby

Greg Parker · March 5, 2009

[different strands of the conversation are separated by --------------]

LEN:

So you think Hyde III, the people he spoke to and the head of his father’s ground crew are being duplicitous? It seems like you are looking for an excuse to discount their info just because it contradicts your theory. I have also relied on contemporary press accounts.

GREG

“No. I don't think that. What I think is that they are not good sources on the basis that they may have reason to be duplicitous”

LEN

What a wondrous example of double speak, you “don’t think that” they “are being duplicitous” but believe “they may have reason to be duplicitous”. Do you even know what you think?

GREG

Len, I’m sorry that discerning the difference is so problematic for you. It really isn’t so subtle that it should escape you.

Let’s try and simplify it even further for:

Q: Do I think they are being duplicitous?

A: No. I don’t know what they know, so make no judgement on it.

Q: Do you think they have reason to be duplicitous?

A: Yes.

Q: What’s the difference here?

A: The difference is that people who have reason to lie on a given subject make terrible witnesses whether or not they are in fact lying.

-----------------------------

GREG

“or they may in fact have no knowledge of any Northwoods style operation. Recall that the Northwoods document calls for some involved in the operation to be left out of the loop (At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.).”

LEN

Not analogous Hyde III spoke to U-2 pilots who told him how susceptible the plane was to crashing given even a +/- 3% airspeed error could bring it down. This has been confirmed by numerous sources including U-2 pilots.

GREG

So… U2 pilots provided confirmation for……….. U2 pilots. Interesting.

And in other news, Charlie’s girls confirm Manson’s innocence, the CIA confirms Lee Harvey Oswald had no intelligence connections and Ronald McDonald confirms that Hamburgler has been fully rehabilitated.

LEN

He also spoke to the people who carried out the crash investigation which was presumably based on radar returns and examining the wreckage.

GREG

Where might one examine the report no doubt generated by this investigation?

--------------------------------

LEN

A member of the ground crew said it would not have been possible for an outsider to sabotage his plane. Hyde and the others had retired decades earlier and had no reason to be deceptive.

GREG

Again, I have not mentioned sabotage. Nor does the Northwoods document in the context you put it in. It is a red herring.

---------------------------------

GREG

“As for the press accounts...most reported what they were told to report.”

LEN

Presumably they would have been “told to report” it looked like the plane had been shot down rather than the opposite if the plan was to blame Cuba.

GREG

Not necessarily. They only had to keep that door open while they decided whether to go ahead or abandon the plan.

LEN

Strawman I never made such a statement [that every utterance by those spoken to about the incident was believable]. My argument doesn't rest so much on believing what they said than the fact that their statements (truthful of not) didn't fit with the scenario you are proposing.

GREG

“Sorry. I'm having real trouble grasping the concept here. It sounds like you're saying you don't know if they told you the truth or not - the important thing to you is they didn't agree with me?”

LEN

Your confusion stems from your doctoring of my original quote. The part in the brackets “[that every utterance by those spoken to about the incident was believable]” was YOUR addition. You referred to lies told by “the USG” in the snippet of your previous post I was replying to, thus “they” was obviously “the USG”.

GREG

And who employed the ground crew of the U2? Ringling Bros Circus, or the USG?

--------------------------------

LEN

It doesn’t matter so much if it were true that 1) there were no signs that the plane was downed by hostile fire or 2) if it presumably crashed due to a mechanical problem - the fact that the White House, SAC and other military sources were saying these things doesn’t fit with your Northwoods type scenario.

GREG

Wrong for reasons stated above.

LEN

Speak of your scenario do you think JFK or RFK were "in on" the 12/63 'invasion' of Cuba?

GREG

I thought I'd made it clear I don't write scenarios. Not as a general rule - and certainly not on demand.

LEN

Evasion noted and I can’t say that I blame you because answering would present you with a dilemma. I haven’t read the book but based on reviews its evidence (documents and witness statements) indicated an invasion coordinated by the Kennedy brothers. Rejecting their involvement would leave you without much (if any) “evidence” that such an invasion was indeed in the works but accepting their involvement wouldn’t fit with your silly theory.

GREG

What “evasion”? I did not “evade” you on this. I have answered you. That I won’t jump at your command to write something I don’t have the expertise to write, is of scant concern to me – and certainly has no bearing on where the truth may lie.

----------------------------------

GREG

“I have simply been drawing attention to the similarities of this incident to a scenario dreamt up the Joint Chiefs, and the timing of the incident being perfect for a purported invasion.”

LEN

But you choose to ignore the numerous discrepancies between what the JCS proposed and what happened.

GREG

Because anyone can find discrepancies between a plan and the actual end result. That holds true whether you’re talking about plans for building an outhouse or plans for an intelligence operations – or anything in between. And Northwoods was not a final document. What it contained was ideas/recommendations.

Show me any intel planning that was ever carried out exactly the way it was planned. The basics of what happened fit the general thrust of Northwoods, as does the timing and other factors.

--------------------------------

LEN

You are reversing the burden of proof you are the one suggesting something was amiss

GREG

“No, it doesn't work like that. Len. The burden here is yours. It was YOUR claim that their was nothing which differentiated this incident from other U2 incidents.”

LEN

We could go back and forth but the only people claiming there was anything odd about the crash are a blogger who calls himself (or herself) “cod$#!t “ [GREG INTERJECTING: Ahem.That is not what the person calls himself. That is what he calls his blog.] (that’s not how they spell it), Robert and you, so sorry the burden is on you. You insinuated that the crash was anomalous, I asked you for evidence. You started from a false premise - that the wreckage was not found.

GREG

Yes, Len. On this, I was in error, having forgotten that the wreckage was allegedly found a day later.

LEN

There is only evidence of one other crash in a body of water thus it is not odd that it MIGHT be the only U-2 crash in which no body was recovered. You have failed to show that was the only bodiless crash. The wreckage from the Sea of Japan crash seems not have been recovered while Hyde’s was. People who know a lot more about this than you (or I) including his son and collegues see nothing odd in Hyde’s body not being recovered. Some think he ejected at 10,000 feet but the parachute didn’t deploy.

GREG

I do have more on this, but it might be premature to go into it here. Apologies, but I want to ensure as best I can I’m not seeding misinformation.

LEN

3) According to contemporary news reports the “wreckage” of Hyde’s U-2 was located the next day.

GREG

“Happy to take your word for it though a cite would be appreciated.”

LEN

1) I provided a link, which you saw fit to edit out of your reply, so your request is disingenuous or yet another sign of your confusion.

GREG

One of the links didn’t work.

LEN

2) The following comes from the initial post on this thread and was repeated a few times, please try and pay attention:

***As I said, I forgot. Terrible short-term memory. However, in a years time, the bell would have rung…

DMN 11-22-1963

Wreckage of Pilotless U-2 Located

KEY WEST, Fla - (AP) The wreck of a U-2 plane was found Thursday on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. But its cockpit was empty, holding out hope that its pilot Capt. Joe G. Hyde Jr

3) Robert’s post above confirms this as well

It should be noted that the area around Key West is known for sharks and his son gave an explanation as to why no body was found, he spoke to other U-2 pilots and they don’t think “the parachute ever deployed” (almost forgot his and their word is suspect). Thus once again you are working from a false assumption (see below)

“From http://swtexaslive.com/october2006/hydeAt 10,000 feet, and according to procedure that that time, he attempted to eject. However, the sink rate and centrifugal G-forces of the spin during long fall exceeded the operational capabilities of the ejection seat. They doubt his parachute ever deployed.

GREG

Was the seat found, Len?”

LEN

What don’t you e-mail his son and ask? Why is that relevant? Acording to report Robert posted it was. Don't you think it possible that free falling 2 miles and or a shark could have removed the body from the chair?

GREG

Sharks don’t have opposable thumbs, Len.

LEN

I seriously doubt it would have been possible to land a U-2 discretely at Eglin.

GREG

“What you seriously doubt is your only concern. It may be pertinent if you possess greater knowledge of the subject than the authors of the document had. Do you?”

LEN

As you well know the scenario in the document called for an agile F101 being used not a cumbersome U-2, are you playing games or are you really that confused? U-2’s are difficult to land and require (or at least required at the time) another U-2 pilot in a chase car radioing instructions to the pilot. Since they only had 2 wheels they flopped over on the runway and ground crews had insert “pogos” into the wings before the plane could be towed away. Apperently it took a couple of guys to pull the wing sticking up down so that the pogo could inserted in the lower wing. Kind of hard to do that in a base not accustomed to U-2 landings without drawing attention.

GREG

There are a number of suggestions in the document. The ones needing aircraft mainly refer to drones/U2s. The one suggestion concerning an F101 could have been changed to a U2, as well – notwithstanding your objections to such an idea.

--------------------------------

LEN

Except that news accounts clearly identified the pilot as Joe Hyde Jr. Do you think the Cubans are retarded? How would the Cubans have recovered him before the Americans, why didn’t they say at the time they had his body?

GREG

“The Cubans (or at least Castro) did whatever was in his best interest. Why for instance, didn't they make a fuss about the breach of airspace?”

LEN

Irrelevant but how would “making a fuss” helped them?

GREG

Castro has been known to talk for many many hours after less provocations from the US. He was allegedly very keen to rid Cuba of the US base, and to do it peacefully. Propaganda and a call to the UN to complain surely were indicated as measured responses? If so, why are both absent?

GREG

“Why did they never find a legal means (or good old loophole) to tear up the Gitmo lease?”

LEN

Once again irrelevant but apparently by accepting the rent for the first year or two he was in power Castro lost the right to abrogate the lease. But even if he wanted to he didn’t have the means to expel the US, he was a bit out gunned.

GREG

I’ve read that he never cashed any of the checks.

And he had a perfect opportunity in ’61 (No – not BoP) to force the US out, but failed to act.

---------------------------------

GREG

"IN any case, for all the Cubans knew Johnson was his real name and Hyde was the alias. What to believe - ID found on the body or what they would consider Imperialist propaganda reports of the incident?"

LEN

Still doesn’t explain why they kept having his body a secret for over a decade. Wouldn’t it have been “in there best interest” to have said they had it sooner then getting his name right?

You have still yet to explain how they would have recovered his from US waters without being noticed by the US.

GREG

Without a body – you don’t know what happened to him. You are taking the word of the authorities – though you rather strangely deny doing so.

LEN

Your scenario would involve not only involve the above but them forgetting that he had gone under a different name in press reports (which included interviews with his wife and mother) otherwise they presumably would have said his name was Johnson or Hyde.

GREG

???? Sorry. Can’t make out what you mean.

----------------------------

LEN

How exactly does the plane being “highly unsafe” and prone crash help your theory?

GREG

“It doesn't. Nor does it do it any harm.”

LEN

Of course it does a plane that rarely crashes like a F101 crashing (without any help) is unusual, a plane that frequently crashes doing so isn’t.

GREG

So if Len Colby was running Northwoods, he’d crash a plane that rarely crashes – thus drawing more questions than he may be able to answer?

Not me. I’d use a plane that has a history of either crashing or being shot down. The latter is what you want it to look like – but the former gives you wiggle room to back out of a pretext invasion should the plan be aborted after the “incident”. “Hey, it wasn’t shot down, it just crashed like all those others. Doh!”

-----------------------------

LEN

Are you backing away from your sabotage theory?

GREG

You are the only person who mentioned sabotage. I never said anything about it at all.

LEN

Inherent from your theory which seems to be the JCS or some other group in the military made his plane crash. The only other possibility is that “they” shot him down but this was some how missed (or covered up) by the people who found and examined the wreckage.

GREG

You seemed determined to write a scenario for me based on every bad idea you can dream up. So knock yourself out and write it for chrissakes. Just don’t put my name to it – or pretend that it has any validity.