Greg Burnham

Judyth, As I hope you remember, I long ago expressed to you that I lack the time and resources to thoroughly research every lead in this case and am therefore forced to prioritize. That necessitates that much of what is worth researching, given the rather large quantity of evidence, I have unfortunately been forced to leave out--including a lot of information related to you and to your story. Beyond my initial research of your story I have done very little. For that inability, I am truly sorry, but it is what it is. However, because of those limitations I am forced to say that I have "reasonable doubt" about the direct relevance to this subject. That is not to say that I believe it is irrelevant. I could be wrong, but I don't know to a certainty that it has relevance--that's all. My inability to firmly state that I know it is or is not relevant is a function of my lack of having done sufficient homework to make such a judgment call. My indecisiveness is not a reflection on your credibility or on my opinion of your sincerity. Judyth, it would be equally misleading for me to claim I am convinced that this is or is not relevant. On the other hand, I do believe you. I believe you are reporting the truth as you know it to the best of your ability. I will continue to urge others to either thoroughly fact check your story for themselves before attempting to endorse or discredit it. Or at the very least, if they are unwilling to conduct the research themselves, I urge them to stop attempting to silence those who are in the process of doing that very thing. GO_SECURE monk Jack, While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying. Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here. Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up. That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.

Jack, While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying. Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here. Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up. That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.

True... But, absent any evidence of their authority in that "other field" (21st Century Giraffe reproductive habits, as an example) it would be fallacious to appeal to their authority in that field...which was Jim's point.

That is somewhat of a "strawman" argument. I didn't read Pamela suggesting anything about any researchers gathering at Judyth's feet, being silent, acting like sheeple, or soaking it all up. I agree that responsible research requires the objective (in-good-faith) verification of elements of her account. But, nobody has even remotely suggested that Judyth's story not be fact checked. I can't speak for Pamela, but I, for one, vigorously encourage such verification. What I object to is, however, the penchant of some to summarily dismiss her claims citing unsupported assertions about her mental health, her integrity, her motivation, or irrelevant pseudo-exclusionary evidence that is, in reality, not mutually exclusive at all. In my best estimation that behavior is counter-intuitive to the type of research that you claim to espouse.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8359.html Jim was citing Einstein as an example only. Certainly because of Einstein's extensive outspokeness on ploitical issues, particularly ones relevant to nuclear weapons, it could be argued that some would consider his opinion profoundly relevant. I think the key phrase in Jim's example is "would generally be viewed as fallacious" -- But, either way, that wasn't his point. Perhaps if he had said, "Appealing to Einstein on the reproductive habits of 21st Century giraffes held in captivity -- would generally be viewed as fallacious..." that would have been preferable so as not to cause some to split hairs.

Jack, You are incorrect about Jim's argument being fallacious. His argument is not based on the existence (real or imagined) of a consensus opinion. That there are a number of persons in agreement about this subject (and a number who disagree) is a fact--not an argument. And Jim didn't unduly rely upon that fact in his presentation, IMO. When you and I discussed/argued this subject years ago, I was similarly mystified by your argument that: "I know there were two Oswalds--Harvey and Lee--and since Judyth doesn't CONFIRM the existence of the second Oswald, her story is false." In all due respect to you and to our 13 years of friendship, Jack, that argument is not valid. Her ignorance of the fact of a second Oswald doesn't have any bearing on the veracity of the remainder of her account. That which she doesn't know...she doesn't know. Perhaps she even denies the possibility--from her own experience? Even if she did, although she may not be accurate about that part--it still wouldn't invalidate the remainder of her testimony all by itself.

Rich DellaRosa was such a principled man who never gave up and who carried the torch until the very end. That will surely be a distinguishing part of his legacy. It’s his eternal flame. When Rich first started the forum it was like an oasis in the desert. The World Wide Web was brand new back then—just a few years in existence. Yet many various so-called “news groups” had sprung up and several were dedicated to the JFK assassination. But the most prominent one was what we used to refer to as “the nut house” – And the few others were really no better. They ran asylums over there—where ad hominem personal attacks were tolerated by the administrators and even encouraged by the moderators. It was as though arguing for its own sake was the rule. The policy of moderating posts in those news groups was seemingly arbitrary, and was tantamount to censorship. So, Rich envisioned a FORUM instead of a news group environment. His vision was important because he realized the power of the internet and the www – not only its ability to reach a huge audience, but its ability to allow researchers a visual medium. The internet was only now becoming readily available to the common man and it was important to Rich that the photographic and film evidence be widely distributed, widely analyzed, and easily accessible to the best researchers so that they could upload their work for peer review and general dissemination. One of the researchers for whom Rich was particularly interested in providing such a venue, because of his efforts in the arena of photographic analysis, was Jack White. Jack has studied the photographic evidence for nearly 50 years. He was an expert witness for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 70’s—and 13 years ago was somewhat frustrated by the limitations of the internet—at least the news group format at that time. There were several reasons for this frustration. Some were technical and some were political. So, Rich stepped up to the plate in a very big way. He started a forum that was designed to be “top shelf” technologically, allowing image uploading for analysis of the photographic and film evidence. But, equally important—maybe even more important—Rich established a forum policy that was unprecedented at the time. It was based on his profound appreciation of FREEDOM of SPEECH above all else. However, he recognized that along with freedom comes responsibility. He was wise enough to know that there are those who will abuse that “freedom” and use speech as a weapon against those with whom they might not agree; against those they would prefer to silence; or as a means to derail an inquiry that they or their masters found threatening. Whatever the reasons for that type of abuse of logic, language, and free speech—Rich didn’t care—the rule was the rule: no personal attacks on his forum. You can attack ideas, methods, even conclusions, but not the person, nor the person’s intentions or background—in other words, it was a “flame free zone” –and it was the first of its kind. As a demonstration of his dedication to promoting free speech, he allowed participation of both conspiracy oriented researchers and researchers who believed that Oswald acted alone on the forum. This was important because he followed the same rules of engagement for both camps, even though he was himself not ambivalent as to which point of view was worthy of merit. Today the JFKresearch Assassination Forum is one of the best resources for both veteran and novice researchers. I am grateful for having known you, Rich DellaRosa; I am honored to have worked with you; proud to have fought the good fight back to back with you. GO_SECURE Your main monk

Rest in peace, my friend. GO_SECURE monk

Thank you Dean. I appreciate the kind words. This is a very different venue to be sure. I'm looking forward to it. GO_SECURE monk

Nope, I didn't miss it. I just noticed there was no link to a bio, that's all. He wrote an "about me" in his signature, not a bio. But, I really don't care. I would turn down sgt-at-arms, FWIW, years ago. Shall I reconsider? You guys just might inspire such a move, indeed. Did you think I was talking to you, Craig? Would I EVER find myself talking to you first? Not a chance. Is that it, David? For some reason I have the feeling you haven't read what you've referenced any more than you have read any of my post over the years which clearly show that I disagreed with the Warren Commission findings. In fact, I think from reading your responses over the years that you probably haven't read much of anything on the JFK assassination unless it was scribbled on the wall next to a urinal in a drunk tank. Bill Miller So we meet again. That was quite an intelligent and helpful reply, Bill. I suppose you're especially proud of the maturity you displayed in the part of your post where you mention a "urinal" -- a very class act. I thought you had to have a biographical page here? Ever the guard dog I see...have you forgotten your are not in OZ..er...the JFKresearch forum anymore? IN any case it appears in the rush to be the Sergeant at Arms once again your must have missed this... "I am Bill Miller, a long time researcher of the Kennedy assassination. My main interest are in the realm of the photographic record and the witnesses statements and testimonies. I have studied the case for over 25 years and I have received the Mary Ferrell Award presented for the discovery of new evidence in the JFK assassination murder case."

Robert Charles, Good God 'tis delightful to "read you" again! It's been way too long, I didn't know where you'd gone off to after Harvey & Lee. I look forward to future correspondence, my friend-- GO_SECURE monk

In 1966 my family had returned from Washington, DC, to live in San Diego, CA. During those tumultuous times I was becoming more and more aware of politics, specifically their impact on history. Interestingly, political power has the unique potential of effecting not only the shaping of current history--which is the focus of most concerned activists--but it actually has an equally significant impact on BOTH future and, surprisingly, past history, as well. Political power is its own creator...and destroyer. I remember following the campaigns of the candidates for the 1968 Presidential race beginning with the refusal to seek or accept the democratic nomination by LBJ. Then Hubert Humphry, Ed Muskie, and George McGovern camps turned up the volume, but not nearly loudly or passionately enough. Then came RFK. He practically whispered by comparison, but the electorate perceived a SHOUT. And it was off to the races. So much happened so quickly back in the Kennedy years. They had the ability to create tremendous momentum--almost instantly. An avalanche of loyalty, purpose, solidarity, vision, and hope based on a real desire to create a level playing field among Americans. That is not a communist agenda--it is an American ideal. The concept of an America which fosters a "policy of non-entitlement for the priveledged and equal opportunity for the under priveledged and disenfranchised"--in no way resembles Socialism. The idea promotes a "free market" by un-stacking an otherwised "stacked deck" -- RFK made an appearance at the El Cortez Hotel in downtown San Diego on June 4th, 1968. My mother brought me and my sister there to see him. We were so excited. We constructed home made placcards and attached them to boards. As we made our way to the parking garage exit where his convertible would be emerging after his speech was over, we were met by a crowd that was already gathered there. I handed my sign to my sister and told my mom I wanted to get closer to see him. She said I could, but be careful. I weaved my 11 year old rather scrawny frame between the adults until I got all the way to the front. His car came out of the parking structure and stopped half way over the sidewalk. He stood up to wave at all of the people gathered--and immediately two aides/body guards nearly tackled him back into the seat of the open car due to all the tall buildings. After he landed in his seat he seemed to look right at me--at least I think he did--and so I lunged forward with my whole body attempting to touch him, jumping halfway over the cordon rope and managed to get my right arm into the car and grabbed somone's tie and lapel. However, I can't be sure it was his because the bodies in front of me were blocking my view. Someone slapped my hand loose and I let go--and just then he definitely looked my way and smiled his toothy Kennedy warmth. As we watched the election returns about 24 or so hours later, our cheers for victory were destroyed before our eyes. And that's all I have to say about that.

Is that it, David? For some reason I have the feeling you haven't read what you've referenced any more than you have read any of my post over the years which clearly show that I disagreed with the Warren Commission findings. In fact, I think from reading your responses over the years that you probably haven't read much of anything on the JFK assassination unless it was scribbled on the wall next to a urinal in a drunk tank. Bill Miller So we meet again. That was quite an intelligent and helpful reply, Bill. I suppose you're especially proud of the maturity you displayed in the part of your post where you mention a "urinal" -- a very class act. I thought you had to have a biographical page here?

First, he's not my buddy. I barely know him, but he's always treated me kindly. Secondly, he made a general statement--right or wrong--but he never mentioned your name or even implied he was talking about you. If you hadn't jumped into the conversation, I wouldn't have guessed it on my own. I don't approve of insults either, I just didn't realize he was targeting you or anyone specifically. I still don't see that in his post. Anyway, enough of this, back to work.

Good call, IMO, Bill. Hey, I met with her in person--corresponded for years with her--and I even believe she is telling the truth. Yet, my plate is also too full to process her evidence in depth. I have to admit that I was "prejudiced" against her from the start. As "old school" as it may sound, I have little tolerance for marital infidelity--by the unfaithful married partner or by the "outsider" who inserts themselves into a marriage. So, I started out biased against her--but I am aware of my own prejudice, and hopefully suspended judgement. That led me to an open enough mind to believe her story. However, like I've said before, we don't always arrive at the same conclusions based on the same evidence. I would have a lot of work to do to verify her story--even though I really do believe her--in order to really get behind it. Am I too lazy--or too busy? I dunno. But maybe we should be thankful for Fetz, as it's now his job to "sort it all out" methinks. ROFLMAO GO_SECURE monk

No offense, Bill--but, consider yourself "left out" from now on--at your own request! Refrain from responding to the topics from which you desire to be disenfranchised...and voila` it's a done deal! I got married 5 1/2 years ago and nearly dropped completely out of the whole convoluted, obfuscated, myriad of mirrors, smoke, and BS! Who could blame you? GO_SECURE monk PS: Then I remembered: I still care...

You will not have "the last word" here. Not in my biographical area--and not on my watch. A word to the wise.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970 ========================================================= HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ____________ SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman ROBERT L.F. SIKES, Florida JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi GEORGE W. ANDREWS, Alabama DANIEL J. FLOOD, Arizona JOHN M. SLACK, West Virginia JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York FRANK E. EVANS, Colorado GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB, California WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Ohio JOHN J. RHODES, Arizona GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin R. L. MICHAELS, RALPH PRESTON, JOHN GARRETT, PETER MURPHY, ROBERT NICHOLAS AND ROBERT FOSTER, Staff Assistants _______________ * Temporarily assigned. H.B. 15090 PART 5 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION Department of the Army Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1969 UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY 129 TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969 agents that we have ever considered. So, we have to believe they are probably working in the same areas. SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired. MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field? DR. MACARTHUR. We are not. MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest? DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest. MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be, the time and the cost involved? DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. (The information follows:) The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observa- tions: 1. All biological agents up the the present time are representatives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes. 2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease. 3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million. 4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field. Almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC). The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a con- troversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years. It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it, there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research program.

In a 1968 essay entitled The Microbiologist and His Times, Luria implored members of the American Society of Microbiologists to reconsider the ethics of their dangerous participation in covert military research. Beginning in the 1950's, an advisory committee of the Society had been cooperating with the army biowarfare laboratory at Fort Detrick, located in Frederick, Maryland. The biology professor counseled, "The decision as to whether or not to work on biological warfare research, and on war-related research in general, is bound to be a personal one. Consciousness of the difficult issues involved dictates the utmost restraint in making value judgments concerning either those who do carry out such research or those who wish to disassociate themselves from it." Luria's personal opinion was that the Society should not be associated with the Fort Detrick biowarfare lab, and that the committee should be disbanded. In 1969 Dr. Donald M. MacArthur appeared at a Congressional Hearing on Chemical and Biological Warfare. As Deputy Director of the Department of Defense, he was responsible for the management of diverse research and technology programs such as rocket and missile propulsion, materials technology, medical and life sciences, social and behavioral sciences, environmental sciences, and chemical technology. Donald MacArthur declared that biowarfare experts could develop a genetically engineered "super germ" that would be very different from any previous microbe known to mankind. The agent would be a highly effective killing agent because the human immune system would be powerless against this super-microbe. This testimony was delivered in Washington before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Department of Defense Appropriations for 1970, on July 1, 1969. When questioned about the cost and time required to develop this biowarfare program, Dr. MacArthur answered that a small group of molecular biologists had considered the matter and provided the following details...

Thanks Jack! LMAO -- Well, I guess I have a lot to learn by way of orientation here. But I guess I'll give everyhting the "sniff" test to be sure. GO_SECURE monk

I didn't post this paper on the forum--someone else did. Had I wanted to discuss it perhaps I would have, but I don't care. I find coincidences interesting, but not necessarily meaningful and in any event, this is all rather old news. I am looking forward to having more relevant discussions than this subject, because even though its my paper, I don't think it matters much at all. After exhaustive research to confirm facts, the only outcome I was hoping for when I wrote it was to draw some attention to the man who filmed the assassination and some peripheral circumstances. Afterall, that film has been used as "proof" of Oswald's guilt by LNers, and "proof" of his innocence by CT's, rather than it being treated for what it really is: EVIDENCE. It is not PROOF. It is evidence ONLY. Moreover, that film has been relied upon more often than all other evidence combined! How? Because it has been cross-contaminating a great volume of collateral evidence. It is relied on not only for what it shows but because it is used as a "reference" from which all other evidence is measured. For instance, it established the timing of the shots, the location of the victim at each shot, the medical and forensic evidence were never "taken at face value" but rather were compared to the film, even eyewitness and earwitness testimony was either accepted, discarded, discredited, or altered to comport to the film, etc. Get it? The film was evidence only and as such, it was UNPROVED! You don't gather several pieces of evidence from a crime scene, pick (or create) your favorite one and then throw out the ones that don't comply with the one you liked! It's a big deal, not my paper, and not the film as "proof" --but the film as EVIDENCE....now THAT'S a big deal. Anyway, I have argued about as much as I ever will about the Zappy Cartoon with many folks, some are members here. I grow tired of it as it has become somewhat of a parlor game so I won't engage in such discussions. They lead nowhere. GO_SECURE monk

Foretold is forewarned. Thanks Peter.

First of all, it's LeGon -- there is no "R" in her name. My source for the spelling is easily researched. My source for the rest is a third party who claims to have worked there at that time, but wishes to remain anonymous. I apologize, but sources are sources--and this one has provided reliable information in the past. You can take it or leave it. However, another resercher offered me confirmation of same before I wrote the paper. Are you seriously asking me to use claims made in this thread as your Cite to Authority? Sorry, but it don't work that way. One must draw conclusions from evidence. I simply called a spade a spade: "In an Agency memorandum dated April 13, 1977, contained in George de Mohrenschildt's CIA file, Moore set forth facts to counter a claim which had been recently made by WFAA-TV in Dallas that Lee Harvey Oswald was employed by the CIA and that Moore knew Oswald. In that memo, Moore is quoted as saying that according to his records the last time he talked to George de Mohrenschildt was in the fall of 1961. (84) Moore said that he had no recollection of any conversation with de Mohrenschildt concerning Lee Harvey Oswald. (85) The memo also noted that Moore recalled only two occasions when he met de Mohrenschildt : First, in the spring of 1958 to discuss the mutual interest the two couples had in mainland China ; and -then in the fall of 1961 when the de Mohrenschildts showed films of their Latin American walkingtrip. (86) (35) Other documents in de Mohrenschildt's CIA file indicated more contact between Moore and de Mohrenschildt than was stated in the 1977 memo by Moore. In a memorandum datedMay1, 1964, from Moore to the Acting Chief of the Contacts Division of the CIA, Moore stated that he had known George de Mohrenschildt and his wife since 1957, at which time Moore got biographical data on de Mohrenschildt after de Mohrenschildt's trip to Yugoslavia for the International Cooperation Administration. (87) Moore said also in that 1964 memo that he saw de Mohrenschildt several times in 1958 and 1959. (88) (36) De Mohrenschildt's CIA file contained several reports submitted by de Mohrenschildt to the CIA on topics concerning Yugoslavia . (89) , (37) In' an interview with the committee on March 14, 1978, Moore ,stated that he did interview de Mohrenschildt. in 1957 after the Yugoslavia trip. (90) At that time Moore also indicated he had "periodic" 55 contact with de Mohrenschildt for "debriefing" purposes over years after the that.(91) Moore said that none of that contact or conversation with de Mohrenschildt was related to Oswald ; Moore said that the allegations that de Mohrenschildt asked Moore's "permission" to contact Oswald were false. (92) Well, as you know, the Mason's tend to be very secretive especially at that level, so good luck trying to prove (or disprove) it. The Crusade for a Free Europe was a domestic CIA version of Radio Free Europe-- George's brother Dimitri was also very involved. I have an idea, do your own research--draw your own conclusions--write your own paper. I have done mine and don't feel the need to justify it to you. However, you are obviously free to reject it. Good hunting-- GO_SECURE monk

Thanks Bill. It's good to see so many familiar names here, too. That book definitely looks like an interesting read. Best--

Hey Bill, It's interesting to note that there is still no mention of the true facts surrounding Gary Powers U2 flight's demise. No mention that his U2 was NOT equipped with a Lundahl camera, but was equipped with only a regular bombadier's camera. Providing such an inferior camera when operating at an elevation in excess of 50,000 feet was counter-intuitive to the purpose of a U2's mission. The Lundahl camera was the only camera capable of high resolution at such altitudes, yet Power's U2 was not so equipped. Why? Perhaps it is because the secrets of THAT technology needed to be preserved even more than those of the U2 itself. But, "who knew" that his U2 would be going down--and gave the order to replace the Lundahl with the useless bombadier's camera for that flight? Someone did...to be sure. Oh, and by the way, Powers' U2 could not have been brought down by an "indirect hit" (or a direct hit) from Surface to Air missiles in that era because the U2 was flying at approximately 60,000 to 70,000 feet altitude. There were literally no SA missiles capable of reaching those altitudes--none. Moreover, even Soviet Migs couldn't reach those altitudes. That's what made the U2 so special...it was invulnerable to attack as long as it maintained altitude. This made it a great intelligence gathering resource (provided it was equipped with the Lundahl) but a very poor "weapon" in combat. If an aircraft is hit with a "pebble" at that altitude it will EXPLODE. That isn't code either, I mean, a pebble--a little, tiny rock. That U2 would have been obliterated if it had been hit with anything--spit in the wind, let alone a SA missile--but it wasn't. Gary walked away from the wreckage and there are photographs taken of the aircraft after the crash landing. BTW: Those photos show NO presence of the Lundahl camera that should have been there. Powers' U2 was not "shot down" -- even Allen Dulles testified to that after the incident. It was forced down and crash landed on a farm because its fuel supply mixture (specifically hydrogen) had been tampered causing it to lose altitude. The U2 can't restart its engines (if they die) until it descends to an altitude that allows it to become vulnerable to the enemy.