Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

" "Military sources in Washington did not discount entirely the possibility of a Cuban attack on the U2. If it had been shot over Cuba, the high-flying plane could have glided as far as the area where it crashed." Panama City Herald, Nov 21, 1963 "

- Lost on 28 July 1966 near Oruro, Bolivia. USAF Pilot: Robert D. Hickman became unconscious and his plane flew out over the Gulf of Mexico, eventually crashing into the side of a mountain, destroying the plane. Robert Hickman died in the crash.

ie.high altitude, pilot loses conciousness, plane flies over Gulf of Mexico EVENTUALLY hittinhg thr side of a mountain in southern Bolivia or "if it had been shot over Cuba the high flying plane (which plane*, which piulot(who did he look like?), where from, where to. ) could haxe glided as the area where it crashed???

_________________

Lost (???) on 19 December 1956. Pilot: Bob Ericson survived. Also* (???) this a/c has been attributed to a crash on 8 Oct. 1966, see 390/6950)

" “The crux of the stories was what while the Strategic Air Command (SAC) theorized that the plane had experienced mechanical difficulties, military sources in Washington "..." " (ed - format). The plane? which plane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

" "Military sources in Washington did not discount entirely the possibility of a Cuban attack on the U2. If it had been shot over Cuba, the high-flying plane could have glided as far as the area where it crashed." Panama City Herald, Nov 21, 1963 "

- Lost on 28 July 1966 near Oruro, Bolivia. USAF Pilot: Robert D. Hickman became unconscious and his plane flew out over the Gulf of Mexico, eventually crashing into the side of a mountain, destroying the plane. Robert Hickman died in the crash.

ie.high altitude, pilot loses conciousness, plane flies over Gulf of Mexico EVENTUALLY hittinhg thr side of a mountain in southern Bolivia or "if it had been shot over Cuba the high flying plane (which plane*, which piulot(who did he look like?), where from, where to. ) could haxe glided as the area where it crashed???

_________________

Lost (???) on 19 December 1956. Pilot: Bob Ericson survived. Also* (???) this a/c has been attributed to a crash on 8 Oct. 1966, see 390/6950)

" “The crux of the stories was what while the Strategic Air Command (SAC) theorized that the plane had experienced mechanical difficulties, military sources in Washington "..." " (ed - format). The plane? which plane?

John the two crashes are not comparable. Hickman passed out but presumably the plane was undamaged and the engines continued working until all the usable fuel was consumed. It is not uncommon for planes to continue pilotless for great distances in such circumstances. Payne Stewart’s pilots passed out over central Florida and the plane made it South Dakota, Bo Rein’s pilot passed out near Shreveport, LA (ironically not far from Hyde’s AFB) and crashed off the coast of Virginia, a couple of FedEx pilots passed out near Memphis and crashed in Mexico.

Hyde's plane fell 13 miles in 4 minutes it didn't glide anywhere nor was it by most accounts capable of doing so if it had been hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...it didn't glide anywhere ___ nor was it by most accounts capable of doing so if it had been hit."

Not arguing, just curious, trying to follow and learn. Interest in an area of reasearch ouside usual focus. Thanks for answering.

How do you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you know?

Great question. You're penetrating the heart of darkness.

The "Colby" with pilot and/or aeronautical training is answering (directly or indirectly).

This persona routinely exhibits greater command of the language than do others in the Collective.

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...it didn't glide anywhere ___ nor was it by most accounts capable of doing so if it had been hit."

Not arguing, just curious, trying to follow and learn. Interest in an area of reasearch ouside usual focus. Thanks for answering.

How do you know?

Hyde’s son himself a retired USAF jet pilot instructor who has extensively researched the U2 in general and his father’s crash in particular and spoken to various pilots of the aircraft, members of his dad’s ground crew and the people who investigated the crash, wrote the following:

“Earlier in the mission, in a required radio position report back to the SAC command post, the pilot indicated that his autopilot had failed....Flying the U-2 was hard enough with the aid of an autopilot. Flying the U-2 without an autopilot is dangerous, especially at high altitude where the air is extremely thin. The airspeed indicator allows for only three knots (about 5 mph) of deviation. If you fly too slow, the U-2 will stall and lose altitude quickly. If you fly too fast, the U-2 will enter a regime called “mach tuck” where the aircraft will exceed the speed of sound and probably break apart. This regime is referred to as the “coffin corner” by U-2 pilots...With no stall strips, no functioning autopilot, and an airspeed tolerance of only three knots, even a small deviation in temperature or turbulence can quickly put the U-2C in an out-of-control situation.”

http://swtexaslive.com/october2006/hyde

The U2’s vulnerability is confirmed by several sources a few of which quote veteran pilots of the plane:

“He [another U-2 pilot] was flying at an altitude known to U-2 pilots as “coffin corner,” where the air was so thin that it could barely support the weight of the plane, and the difference between maximum and minimum permissible speeds was a mere six knots. If he flew too fast, the aircraft would fall apart. If he flew too slow, the plane would stall, and he would nose-dive. He could not allow his eyes to stray too long from the airspeed indicator in front of him.”

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feature...6?currentPage=2

“The pilots soon learned that their new airplane required careful handling. If they flew too slowly, it would stall; if they flew too fast, the stresses would tear it apart. At maximum ceiling, the difference between too fast and too slow could be as little as 10 knots. The pilots called this narrow envelope the “coffin corner” and learned to keep a very close eye on airspeed. “The coffin corner was a pretty demanding area of flight,” says Pat Halloran, who was in the first group of pilots recruited to fly the airplane for the Air Force.”

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/m...2007_3_40.shtml

“• Increased angle of attack and lift

coefficient leads and “Stall buffet”

• Intermittent flow separation at

transonic speed and “Mach buffet”

• The place where they meet = “Coffin

Corner”

• Can induce an upset (loss of

control)

• U-2 operates in Coffin Córner”

http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lecture22.pdf

It cruises at 70,000 feet, where some pilots can see the curve of the earth. Hundreds of miles are visible below; the sky above can appear pitch black during the day.

At those altitudes, the physics of flight are rewritten. While the plane cruises around 400 knots (460 mph), the air is so thin that the airspeed on cockpit indicators - metered by air pressure moving against the aircraft - reads only 90 knots. More perilously, a window of only 10 knots exists to fly the plane: any faster and you overstress the frame; any slower and you could tumble out of the sky.

"When you start getting up to those altitudes you have what you call a 'coffin corner,'" says Paul Memrick, who piloted U-2s during the final years of the Cold War. "The stall speed and the mach overspeed will pretty much meet."

Orginally from MSNBC

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030221-u2.htm

“When flying at high altitude, early U-2s had to maintain a very specific speed--about 460 mph true airspeed--to stay in the thin margin between stalling and high-speed buffeting. The difference was only about 7 mph, and pilots called this margin the "coffin corner."”

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheet...eet.asp?id=9166

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Len. (and Charles) My apologies for the diversion. I appreciate the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we go any further please answer a few questions:

Do you really believe the theory you seem to be advocating or are you just playing “devil’s advocate”?

In any case can you spell out a rational scenario taking the known facts into account?

What, if anything do you think was suspicious about the incident? The U2 was a crash prone plane and the incident got press coverage comparable to other crashes.

Len, I’m not advocating any theory. I merely note that Operation Northwoods had one suggested false flag op which in the words of the document “will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.” And that the Hyde incident occurred within days of the JFK assassination and within weeks of a purported planned invasion. An invasion overtly involving the US required a pretext. The Gulf of Tonkin would soon give just such a pretext.

What is your basis for assuming the people who spoke anonymously to the press were “brass”? They seem to have spoken to the press with in a few hours of the attack, they might not have been aware of the radar data or the U2’s vulnerabilities. They might not have wanted to make public how unstable the plane was. Hyde’s account matches a news account from the next day, do think he is lying or simply misinformed? Do you presume to understand what happened better than he does?

My basis is that newspaper articles cited by both of us referred to “military sources”. You think the reporters sought the opinions of army grunts, nuns, street people, bartenders and taxi drivers - in fact anyone but military brass?

We know now that the sources did indeed have all the information you hypothesised they may not have had.

Can you site a source for your claims about the 73-B?

Powers book, “The U2 on Trial”

Now you’ve got me confused, YOU were the one who suggested Oswald’s arrest would have spoiled a plot to blame Cuba. I’m not the only person who ‘allots’ such things to LHO even John (Simkin) says he was a longtime Marxist sympathizer who was a member of Fair Play for Cuba*. None of this is under dispute. Why does my “take on it [seem] way off base”?

Perhaps my historiography is off but it’s my impression that just as press accounts were always dismissive of the possibility Hyde was shot down there was no attempt (in the MSM) to link Cuba to the assassination. To the contrary the “official story” from the get go was that Oswald was a ‘lone nut’.

I do indeed suggest that Oswald’s arrest spoilt the party re Cuba (thus the party was moved to Vietnam). Your historiography is wrong insofar as your statement “according to nearly all theories (other than the WCR) LHO getting arrested was part of the plan.” is concerned. I have read but a fraction of the books others here have, but none that I have read theorized that Oswald’s capture was part of the plot.

Oswald as “lone nut” was forced on to Texas authorities who wanted to pursue an international conspiracy (read “the commies did it”). Elements of the USG and its agencies however, also kept pushing to blame Cuba and/or Russia.

Your confusion is… your confusion, but I hope things are clearer now.

It would be fairer to say ¾ or 7/8 shut and the door (as far as I'm aware) was never "slammed shut". In post #8 I linked some NYT articles about the crash if you are willing to pay for the privilege you can read them but I assume the language in them was similarly dismissive. So starting the day after the incident well before JFK was killed the Pentagon and press were discounting the possibility of a shoot down. The press accounts all indicated the plane HAD over flown Cuba which would have been a mitigating factor in a shoot down's value as a casus belli
.

It would not be fair to say anything except that the reportage was a dry record of what was coming out of Washington about the incident – including the possibility that the plane could have been downed by Cuba – despite having all the data you claim shows this as not worthy of consideration.

Further, none of the accounts state as a fact that the plane flew over Cuba. There are only hints that it may have.

Can you provide a source for and/or a more complete version of the following quote?

"Military sources in Washington did not discount entirely the possibility of a Cuban attack on the U2. If it had been shot over Cuba, the high-flying plane could have glided as far as the area where it crashed." Panama City Herald, Nov 21, 1963

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com/Home.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Colby" has been tasked to test the JFK waters.

To all of us who devote so much of our lives to the searches for truth and justice in this case: If you fail to recognize the ramping up of "Colby's" presence on JFK pages for what it surely is, you will have learned nothing from your labors.

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we go any further please answer a few questions:

Do you really believe the theory you seem to be advocating or are you just playing “devil’s advocate”?

In any case can you spell out a rational scenario taking the known facts into account?

What, if anything do you think was suspicious about the incident? The U2 was a crash prone plane and the incident got press coverage comparable to other crashes.

Len, I’m not advocating any theory. I merely note that Operation Northwoods had one suggested false flag op which in the words of the document “will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.” And that the Hyde incident occurred within days of the JFK assassination and within weeks of a purported planned invasion. An invasion overtly involving the US required a pretext. The Gulf of Tonkin would soon give just such a pretext.

Odd then that except for unnamed “military sources” on the day of the incident who said it was possible albeit improbable that the crash was due to enemy fire the scenario pushed by the military, administration and press, from day one, was that it was due to a mechanical (or pilot) problem. Can you elaborate on the “purported planned invasion” of Cuba “within weeks”? Said invasion was presumably planed behind JFK’s back and for reasons unknown nixed by LBJ.

Your unwillingness, or more likely inability to “spell out a rational scenario taking the known facts into account” or point out anything “suspicious about the incident” is duly noted. Can’t say that I blame you though, there’s not a lot (if any) meat on those bones. If you can’t address these points there’s not much point in continuing.

What is your basis for assuming the people who spoke anonymously to the press were “brass”? They seem to have spoken to the press with in a few hours of the attack, they might not have been aware of the radar data or the U2’s vulnerabilities. They might not have wanted to make public how unstable the plane was. Hyde’s account matches a news account from the next day, do think he is lying or simply misinformed? Do you presume to understand what happened better than he does?

My basis is that newspaper articles cited by both of us referred to “military sources”. You think the reporters sought the opinions of army grunts, nuns, street people, bartenders and taxi drivers - in fact anyone but military brass?

We know now that the sources did indeed have all the information you hypothesised they may not have had.

Sarcasm aside it could have people between “grunts” and “brass” (i.e. top level commanders). In any case it is unclear which military commanders in Washington had this info on the day of the crash. Your assumption they did is wishful thinking. The memos from the 20th were intra-White House, sent to SAC (based in Omaha since 1948) and cleared by Alexis Johnson (State Dep’t) but not the DoD “since Mr. Gilpatric is on the Hill today and there is no indication of when he’ll be back”. The memo from the National Military Command Center was issued on the 21st, there is no indication however that the person or people who spoke to the press were from the NMCC.

Can you site a source for your claims about the 73-B?

Powers book, “The U2 on Trial”

Evasion of the rest of my question noted.

Now you’ve got me confused, YOU were the one who suggested Oswald’s arrest would have spoiled a plot to blame Cuba. I’m not the only person who ‘allots’ such things to LHO even John (Simkin) says he was a longtime Marxist sympathizer who was a member of Fair Play for Cuba*. None of this is under dispute. Why does my “take on it [seem] way off base”?

Perhaps my historiography is off but it’s my impression that just as press accounts were always dismissive of the possibility Hyde was shot down there was no attempt (in the MSM) to link Cuba to the assassination. To the contrary the “official story” from the get go was that Oswald was a ‘lone nut’.

I do indeed suggest that Oswald’s arrest spoilt the party re Cuba (thus the party was moved to Vietnam). Your historiography is wrong insofar as your statement “according to nearly all theories (other than the WCR) LHO getting arrested was part of the plan.” is concerned. I have read but a fraction of the books others here have, but none that I have read theorized that Oswald’s capture was part of the plot.

Oswald as “lone nut” was forced on to Texas authorities who wanted to pursue an international conspiracy (read “the commies did it”). Elements of the USG and its agencies however, also kept pushing to blame Cuba and/or Russia.

Your confusion is… your confusion, but I hope things are clearer now.

Most accounts I’ve seen have LHO as the patsy, how exactly did his “arrest spoilt the party re Cuba”? Many (most?) researchers speculate that he was set up by de Mohrenschild and/or the Paines among others and that extensive steps were taken well before hand to frame him. Was he supposed to have been killed before being arrested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be fairer to say ¾ or 7/8 shut and the door (as far as I'm aware) was never "slammed shut". In post #8 I linked some NYT articles about the crash if you are willing to pay for the privilege you can read them but I assume the language in them was similarly dismissive. So starting the day after the incident well before JFK was killed the Pentagon and press were discounting the possibility of a shoot down. The press accounts all indicated the plane HAD over flown Cuba which would have been a mitigating factor in a shoot down's value as a casus belli
.

It would not be fair to say anything except that the reportage was a dry record of what was coming out of Washington about the incident – including the possibility that the plane could have been downed by Cuba – despite having all the data you claim shows this as not worthy of consideration.

Yes they basically repeating "what was coming out of Washington about the incident" As noted above, with exception of unidentified sources who indicated it was vaguely possible on the day of the crash, such a possibility was discounted by the government and press. I’ve cited numerous accounts some from U2 pilots which tell a consistent story even a 3% airspeed variation of an intact U2 would send it plunging to the ground. There is no basis for your speculation that the people who said the plane MIGHT have been down had the data which indicated that was not the case.

A search of the Newspaper Archive for hyde mexico cuba u2 OR u-2 turned up 114 pages but you have to pay to see the results. The same search on the free Kennedy Assassination archive (the same database but limited to pages with the keyword Kennedy) turned up 11, 10 of which were front pages (so much for Robert’s theory the story was buried) I looked at all 11 only 3 mentioned the plane’s supposed ability to have glided 180 miles after being hit.

http://www.newspaperarchive.com/AdvanceSearch.aspx

Even on the 21st (thus presumably based on reporting from the 20th) UPI citing “informed sources”, reported that ‘…there was no “indication” it was downed by ground fire or any other plane. The sources said a malfunction is believed a malfunction caused the plane to go down in the Gulf of Mexico’*. Besides that and the SAC saying there was “no evidence or indication” the plane crashed due to enemy fire the plane came down in a location too distant from the island for it to have been the result of anti-aircraft fire or fighters

* http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0 (works better w/ IE than Firefox)

An AP article from that day said that Cuban radio cited Washington reports that (emphasis added) “It is presumed the plane PLUNGED into the sea due to a mechanical fault”. No mention was made of the plane’s supposed ability to have glided 180 miles after being hit.

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

A search of the archives for Nov. 22 turned up over 50 hits most from page 1, in some cases it divided front page space of late editions with the assassination (so much for Robert’s theory the story was buried) I looked at six, none mentioned the plane’s supposed ability to have glided 180 miles after being hit, none said the plane might have encountered hostile fire, all said:

Both the Defense Department in Washington and the Strategic Air Command headquarters at Omaha, ,Neb., said there was no evidence that the sleek, one-man plane which flies -at altitudes of more than 75,000 feet, lad met with hostile action over Cuba.

It appears, SAC said, that a mechanical failure brought the weird-looking, glider-like craft plunging from the stratosphere in which it operates.
(AP)

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

OR

"The Defense Department and Strategic Air Command said the reconnaissance plane probably crashed because of mechanical failure. When it went down, it was out of Cuban antiaircraft gun range, and the radar screen on which it was being traced apparently showed no other aircraft." (AP)

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

OR

“THE Strategic Air Command said the plane apparently developed mechanical failure and crashed.” (UPI)

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

OR

Some combination, permutation or variation of the above

"Further, none of the accounts state as a fact that the plane flew over Cuba. There are only hints that it may have."

They strongly suggested that it was flying over Cuba, the whole point of the U-2 was its ability to fly at heights that would make it difficult to be detected and shot down. The previously cited UPI story published on the 21st citing a Pentagon “announcement” and the same “informed sources”, reported that the plane was returning from “a reconnaissance mission of Cuba”. An AP article from the same day subtitled “Reportedly on Mission over Cuba” said the “plane presumably crashed after a mission over Cuba”. Like the others it said the DoD and SAC “said there was no evidence of hostile action against the plane” and that SAC “said it was believed the crash was due to mechanical failure”. No mention was made of the plane’s supposed ability to have glided 180 miles after being hit.

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

Another version of the AP article cite a DoD spokesman describing U2s as (paraphrase) “…the spy planes that are still flying over Cuba…” No mention was made of the plane’s supposed ability to have glided 180 miles after being hit.

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

Another version of the UPI story declared in its front page headline that the plane hand been on a “…Cuba Spy Flight”. No mention was made of the plane’s supposed ability to have glided 180 miles after being hit.

Spyflight.jpg

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

On the 22nd UPI reported that the plane crashed “on the way home from a reconnaissance mission over Cuba”

.

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

Can you provide a source for and/or a more complete version of the following quote?

"Military sources in Washington did not discount entirely the possibility of a Cuban attack on the U2. If it had been shot over Cuba, the high-flying plane could have glided as far as the area where it crashed." Panama City Herald, Nov 21, 1963

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com/Home.aspx

Thanks for that, but it provides more evidence against your position than for it. As I speculated it said that SAC said “there was no indication of hostile action and theorized that the jet plane experienced mechanical trouble”.

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...p;currentPage=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Len. (and Charles) My apologies for the diversion. I appreciate the clarification.

Thanks! No apologies necessary. U2's inability to continue much furthur if it had been hit at 70,000 is important to seeing why the Howard/Parker "theory" is rubbish.

"(and Charles)"

Oh yes Drago’s delusional paranoid insults, insinuations accusations and rantings add ever so much to this thread and every one he blesses with his presence.

EDIT: typo

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd then that except for unnamed “military sources” on the day of the incident who said it was possible albeit improbable that the crash was due to enemy fire the scenario pushed by the military, administration and press, from day one, was that it was due to a mechanical (or pilot) problem.

There you go again, Len... like you doubt the first stories were quoting anyone in the military at all. Oh, and the sources in later stories were named... what? No story before the assassination ruled in or out any possibility. SOP prior to any inquiry/investigation.

And please stop making up quotes. Nowhere in any of the stories did anyone say any particular scenario was "improbable".

Can you elaborate on the “purported planned invasion” of Cuba “within weeks”? Said invasion was presumably planed behind JFK’s back and for reasons unknown nixed by LBJ.

There are threads here on the subject. Do a search. LBJ gave the warmongers VN instead. Much more profitable long-term affair.

Your unwillingness, or more likely inability to “spell out a rational scenario taking the known facts into account” or point out anything “suspicious about the incident” is duly noted. Can’t say that I blame you though, there’s not a lot (if any) meat on those bones. If you can’t address these points there’s not much point in continuing.

If I could write scenarios for false flag ops, I'd get a job with the CIA B)

What I will say is this; I don't need to be a zoologist to know if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

As for your comment about pulling out of this discussion -- you really don't need a phoney excuse. Everyone will understand.

Sarcasm aside it could have people between “grunts” and “brass” (i.e. top level commanders). In any case it is unclear which military commanders in Washington had this info on the day of the crash. Your assumption they did is wishful thinking. The memos from the 20th were intra-White House, sent to SAC (based in Omaha since 1948) and cleared by Alexis Johnson (State Dep’t) but not the DoD “since Mr. Gilpatric is on the Hill today and there is no indication of when he’ll be back”. The memo from the National Military Command Center was issued on the 21st, there is no indication however that the person or people who spoke to the press were from the NMCC.

No. Your assumption they didn't shows a lack of understanding about how information is tightly controlled/released by any branch of the government/military. Nothing is left to chance.

Evasion of the rest of my question noted.

I originally addressed every single point, though no one is under any obligation to do so. However, after rewriting twice and losing it both times before getting it saved, I settled for a slightly abridged version.

What follows is what you are referring to:

So it seems they repeatedly flew over enemy territory why would they do so if they had no reason to?

Common sense dictates that a range of 200 miles won't always counter the need to overfly land. The question is a red herring.

Happy now?

Most accounts I’ve seen have LHO as the patsy, how exactly did his “arrest spoilt the party re Cuba”? Many (most?) researchers speculate that he was set up by de Mohrenschild and/or the Paines among others and that extensive steps were taken well before hand to frame him. Was he supposed to have been killed before being arrested?

Yes, but assumed to sucking on cigars and sipping Martinis in Cuba...

Speaking of not responding to all points, do you have any comment on:

"Len, I’m not advocating any theory. I merely note that Operation Northwoods had one suggested false flag op which in the words of the document “will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.” And that the Hyde incident occurred within days of the JFK assassination and within weeks of a purported planned invasion. An invasion overtly involving the US required a pretext. The Gulf of Tonkin would soon give just such a pretext [in Viet Nam]."

U2's inability to continue much furthur if it had been hit at 70,000 is important to seeing why the Howard/Parker "theory" is rubbish.

What's important is seeing how you operate. My argument is not whether it could travel any particular distance after being hit - only that it was stated that it could have travelled as far as the alleged crash site if hit in Cuban waters.

I thought however, I had made it clear that Operation Northwoods called for it to appear to have been hit in international waters.

edited to address the ridiculous comment made to John D

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

Your most recent post above illustrates why "Colby" had been kept away from this forum's JFK threads: It was understood on high that "his" multiple vulnerabilities most likely would be exposed as never before -- except by me and a tiny handful of comrades -- by the extraordinarily high number (in relation to other topics) of informed correspondents who would note eloquently "his" intellectual failings and deep agenda.

Which is precisely what you have done: "What's important is seeing how you operate."

But we dare not relax our guard; "Colby's" calculated risk may yet pay off. Remember, the missions are simply to engage and to support the illusion of a level playing field for "his" disreputable positions as proffered in defense of what James Douglass has termed the Unspeakable.

Unless those of us dedicated to attaining truth and justice about and for JFK confront these people head-on, they win.

CD

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd then that except for unnamed “military sources” on the day of the incident who said it was possible albeit improbable that the crash was due to enemy fire the scenario pushed by the military, administration and press, from day one, was that it was due to a mechanical (or pilot) problem.

There you go again, Len... like you doubt the first stories were quoting anyone in the military at all. Oh, and the sources in later stories were named... what? No story before the assassination ruled in or out any possibility. SOP prior to any inquiry/investigation.

No they weren’t named but were they worked (DoD, SAC) was normally identified. My point was there is no basis for your assumption the unidentified sources were in the know. A day after the incident it would have premature to make any definitive statements about the cause of the crash. However several accounts even from the 20th came very close to ruling out “any possibility” that the crash was due to hostile fire, if you fail to recognize that all you have to do is read over my previous posts with due care. What parts of:

“…the reconnaissance plane probably crashed because of mechanical failure. When it went down, it was out of Cuban antiaircraft gun range, and the radar screen on which it was being traced apparently showed no other aircraft”

And

“there was no evidence that the sleek, one-man plane which flies -at altitudes of more than 75,000 feet, lad met with hostile action over Cuba.

It appears, SAC said, that a mechanical failure brought the weird-looking, glider-like craft plunging from the stratosphere in which it operate”

Do you think left much up to doubt? Why were they saying this if wanted to use the crash as a pretext for an invasion?

GREG: “And please stop making up quotes. Nowhere in any of the stories did anyone say any particular scenario was "improbable".”

Note that unlike you I never put the word improbable in quotation marks, You not I are “making up quotes”. The articles that said the plane could have been downed by hostile fire previously said “the plane presumably went down due to mechanical trouble” OR “SAC said…there was no indication of hostile action and theorized that the jet plane experienced mechanical trouble”. Most said their sources “did not completely rule out” a shootdown. I.E.” it was possible albeit improbable”

GREG: "There are threads here on the subject.[the “purported planned invasion” of Cuba “within weeks”] Do a search. LBJ gave the warmongers VN instead. Much more profitable long-term affair."

I looked at the 1st two pages of the thread linked below. It doesn’t seem like many if any members bought it, John Simkin, Ron, Pat and others raised objections. But it seems the authors of that book theorized that the mob rather than the CIA the clipped JFK. If an invasion was really in the works why kill the president who was backing it. If an invasion was really in the works why was the message from DC that the plane was not shot down?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5360

GREG: “If I could write scenarios for false flag ops, I'd get a job with the CIA"

The fact that you are unable to write a scenario that fits the facts should tell you something. I’m not asking you to dream up a hypothetical future ‘black op’ but rather fit the known facts to one you are advocating took place.

GREG: “What I will say is this; I don't need to be a zoologist to know if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.”

And you duck and dodge like a pro, continuing evasion noted. You have failed to produce any evidence the crash ‘walked’ or ‘quacked’ like a false flag. To the contrary the word from Washington was that the plane a) almost definitely or probably crashed due to mechanical problems and B) probably or definitely had flown over Cuba.

GREG: “As for your comment about pulling out of this discussion -- you really don't need a phoney excuse. Everyone will understand.”

If you can’t flesh out a scenario fitting with the known facts or point out anything suspicious about the crash the rest are just details. I’m not pulling out I’m awaiting YOUR response. “The ball” as they say “is in your court”. IF you can’t adequate address these point continued “debate” will amount to nothing more than ‘mutual masturbation’, sorry but I have better things to do.

If you think you’re winning this ‘debate’ you need a reality check. Don’t let Drago’s support go to your head. Questions about his sanity aside he is hardly a neutral observer.

Sarcasm aside it could have people between “grunts” and “brass” (i.e. top level commanders). In any case it is unclear which military commanders in Washington had this info on the day of the crash. Your assumption they did is wishful thinking. The memos from the 20th were intra-White House, sent to SAC (based in Omaha since 1948) and cleared by Alexis Johnson (State Dep’t) but not the DoD “since Mr. Gilpatric is on the Hill today and there is no indication of when he’ll be back”. The memo from the National Military Command Center was issued on the 21st, there is no indication however that the person or people who spoke to the press were from the NMCC.

No. Your assumption they didn't shows a lack of understanding about how information is tightly controlled/released by any branch of the government/military. Nothing is left to chance.

Paranoid drivel, do you really believe that no one in “the government/military” speaks to the press off the record without the PTB/MIBH’s approval? Was the Pentagon Papers part of the plan? Word of the Mai Lai massacre as well? What about Sibrel Edmounds and Coleen Rowley? If that was part of some plan why was it not mentioned in most accounts? If the articles on the Kennedy Archive are representative sample it made into less than 30% of American newspapers. Why was it dismissed in a press release that day? Why did we have accounts from the day of the crash that the plane “plunged”?

GREG: “I originally addressed every single point, though no one is under any obligation to do so. However, after rewriting twice and losing it both times before getting it saved, I settled for a slightly abridged version.

What follows is what you are referring to:
So it seems they repeatedly flew over enemy territory why would they do so if they had no reason to?

Common sense dictates that a range of 200 miles won't always counter the need to overfly land. The question is a red herring".

Cuba is between 22 and 124 miles across thus there are no occasions when a U2 would have to over fly the island if what you believe were true. All the Cuban missile site photos I've seen were taken prety much straight down as opposed to from an accute angle. The DoD acknowledged a month before the crash that U2's were overfçying the island. Note also that one was shotdown near Beijing which is only about 50 miles inland.

Cuba: http://encarta.msn.com/text_761569844___91/Cuba.html

U2 locations: http://www.blackbirds.net/u2/u2local.html

Beijing: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=pt-BR&e...&iwloc=addr

Most accounts I’ve seen have LHO as the patsy, how exactly did his “arrest spoilt the party re Cuba”? Many (most?) researchers speculate that he was set up by de Mohrenschild and/or the Paines among others and that extensive steps were taken well before hand to frame him. Was he supposed to have been killed before being arrested?

Yes, but assumed to sucking on cigars and sipping Martinis in Cuba...

LHO was meant to escape to Cuba? Funny no one seems to have told him about it, for reasons yet explained he decided to check out a movie on the way. You never answered my question:

“how exactly did his “arrest spoilt the party re Cuba”?”

GREG: “Speaking of not responding to all points, do you have any comment on:

"Len, I’m not advocating any theory. I merely note that Operation Northwoods had one suggested false flag op which in the words of the document “will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.” And that the Hyde incident occurred within days of the JFK assassination and within weeks of a purported planned invasion. An invasion overtly involving the US required a pretext. The Gulf of Tonkin would soon give just such a pretext [in Viet Nam]."

Points that you would have to fit into the narrative that you confess can’t write are that no effort was made to make it appear the plane had been attacked by enemy fire but rather the overwhelming message coming from the military, White House and press was that it came down due to mechanical fault after an over flight. Riddle me this if they were planning on blaming Cuba for the assassination why add a U2 incident? The former would have been more than enough to justify an invasion.

U2's inability to continue much furthur if it had been hit at 70,000 is important to seeing why the Howard/Parker "theory" is rubbish.

What's important is seeing how you operate. My argument is not whether it could travel any particular distance after being hit - only that it was stated that it could have travelled as far as the alleged crash site if hit in Cuban waters.

Even on the 20th it seems they were saying it “plunged”. If they lied about the plane’s capability to fly such a distance a fair number of people would have know they were lying U2 pilots, engineers, mission planners, flight controllers plus presumably a good number of aeronautical engineers and jet pilots not connected to the program.

GREG: “I thought however, I had made it clear that Operation Northwoods called for it to appear to have been hit in international waters.”

As I pointed out previously the SA-2 only had a range of 19 miles. MiGs would have been intercepted long before getting near Key West, so if they wanted to frame Cuba why have the plane come down so far from the island?

GREG: “ edited to address the ridiculous comment made to John D

?????????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...