Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Robert Howard
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Unless you're a photographer, mooner or flasher I doubt you've exposed anything in your life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No they [sources] 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.

Key word, Len - "normally". That is to say, "not always" - as in the first stories out. To suggest this was anyone other than the same sources is absurd. And they knew enough to state that the plane being shot down by Cuba was a possibility - not impossible - let alone highly improbable.

“…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”

Out of range at the place it allegedly went down - but they'd already admitted it could have glided there after being shot down in Cuban airspace.

And let us recall yet again that Northwoods called for a shoot-down in international waters.

Radar "apparently" showed no other aircraft? LOL. Another door left open. Either it showed it or it didn't. Why the weasel word?

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”

You never put it in quotation marks, but as the following shows, you stated "military sources" said "it was possible albeit improbable." You never indicated this was merely your quirky interpretation of what they actually said.

Len: 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.

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?

As far as I am aware, the main objection is not whether an invasion was in the works but that the mafia killed JFK.

As to why kill the president - there were numerous motives - on top of needing a pretext for the invasion. Northwoods called for a at least 2 incidents to occur. Besides - Kennedy did not endorse Northwoods and sacked Lemmitzer when he supported it.

From James Bamford's book, Body of Secrets and quoted in the Wiki entry for Northwoods: Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

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.

It is not a matter of what I believe is true. I quoted the information from Powers book. Maybe it is as simple as needing overhead shots in some - or even most cases.

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:

No Len. I suggested he would be assumed to be in Cuba because that's what the evidence would point to.

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.

I've already given you the known facts. One suggested false flag op in Northwoods called for a USAF plane to appear to be shot down in International waters by Cuba. This bears a striking similarity to what the Hyde incident looked like - and happened less than 2 weeks prior to a planned invasion. When this invasion had the pin pulled, a false flag op off Vietnam was used as a pretext for escalating the VN conflict.

That does not satisfy you simply because - despite what you say now - you want me to weave together a bunch of speculations - which - bit by bit you will nit pick and call for ever increasing minute detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does not satisfy you simply because - despite what you say now - you want me to weave together a bunch of speculations - which - bit by bit you will nit pick and call for ever increasing minute detail.

Agreed. And so ...

To quote Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison in JFK ...

"Ask the question, ask the question!"

WHY does "Colby" act in such a fashion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you can address the 3 following points there is no reason to continue.

What if anything was suspicious about the circumstances of the crash?

Why was the prevailing word out of the military, press and administration that the crash was “probably”/”presumably” due to a mechanical failure? Why did the speculation it might have glided to the crash seemingly only appear in about 15% press account and even the classified as improbable (i.e. “not completely ruled out) while other account s said the plane plunged into the sea (far from Cuba) and that there was “no indication” it was the result of a “Cuban attack”?

Why didn’t they crash the plane closer to Cuba?

Key word, Len - "normally". That is to say, "not always" - as in the first stories out. To suggest this was anyone other than the same sources is absurd. And they knew enough to state that the plane being shot down by Cuba was a possibility - not impossible - let alone highly improbable.

No, even “the first stories out” had the following sentence (or one like it): “The Strategic Air Command (SAC) said there was no evidence of hostile action and theorized the jet plane experienced mechanical trouble.”

I never claimed they said it was “highly improbable” but all the stories indicated the most likely explanation was a problem with the plane. Only a small percentage of the articles said a “the plane being shot down by Cuba was a possibility” even among those most emphasized this was considered improbable.

A search of the Google News Archive turned up 9 articles from 7 newspapers, the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Hartford Courant, Moberly Monitor-Index and San Antonio Light about the crash November 21-22 1963. However the only hit for the phrase “Cuban attack” (a phrase common to both the DMN and UPI accounts) was in the NY Times. This would indicate that only about 14.3% of the newspapers which carried articles about the crash included the speculation that the plane might have been brought down by the Cubans.

http://tinyurl.com/u2search

A Newspaper Archive search for hyde cuba mexico AND (u2 OR u-2) on November 21, 1963 yielded 114 results. The same search with the phrase “Cuban attack” resulted in 15 hits eight of which are available on the Kennedy Assassination Archive. All eight indicated that while “the plane presumably went down because of mechanical trouble….the crash .could have been the result of Cuban attack.” Even assuming that all 15 articles included the speculation that the plane could have been brought down by Cuban fire such speculation only seems to have made it into about 13.2% of US newspapers that covered the story, remarkably close to the 14.3% from the Google archive - unless it was an extraordinary coincidence that is roughly the percentage of papers that included such speculation. Almost all of those that did, it should be noted used the qualifier ‘"did not discount entirely the possibility of Cuban attack on the U2" indicating it was of low probability.

“…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”

Out of range at the place it allegedly went down - but they'd already admitted it could have glided there after being shot down in Cuban airspace

Once again only a small percentage of newspapers, almost certainly less than 20% said the plane could have glided there. There is no doubt about where it “went down”. Implicit was that it crashed to far from Cuba to have been brought down by antiaircraft fire.

GREG: “And let us recall yet again that Northwoods called for a shoot-down in international waters.”

You love repeating that as if it advances your point. Even if they were going to push the story that the plane was shot down in international airspace a crash closer to the island would have been more plausible.

GREG: “Radar "apparently" showed no other aircraft? LOL. Another door left open. Either it showed it or it didn't. Why the weasel word?”

Why don’t you track down the author of the article if he is still alive and ask? Perhaps he or she was being cautious. Perhaps their source wasn’t 100% sure. It is my understanding that it isn’t always clear what a blip on a radar screen is. It would have been unthinkable at the height the Cold War for MiG’s to be north of Key West without being intercepted and even more unthinkable for this not to be clear a day and a half afterwards.

GREG: You never put it in quotation marks, but as the following shows, you stated "military sources" said "it was possible albeit improbable." You never indicated this was merely your quirky interpretation of what they actually said.

Len: 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.

I have no idea what point you are try1ing to make I didn’t put the word “improbable” in quotes and the jist of what they said was it was “improbable”. If one possible cause of an event is classified as “probable” or “presumed” other possible causes are by definition are “improbable” especially if the 2nd option is qualified as being “not completely ruled out”. If you have trouble understanding these words you can look up their meanings here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/improbable

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?

As far as I am aware, the main objection is not whether an invasion was in the works but that the mafia killed JFK.

They were over both and once the credibility of a author comes into question their value as a source is greatly diminished.

GREG: “As to why kill the president - there were numerous motives - on top of needing a pretext for the invasion. Northwoods called for a at least 2 incidents to occur. Besides - Kennedy did not endorse Northwoods and sacked Lemmitzer when he supported it.”

Please cite a source for your claim that “Northwoods called for at least 2 incidents to occur.” In any case being blamed for killing the President would be more than enough justification for ‘regime change’ and according to the book you seem to be citing the Kennedy brothers backed the invasion. I know of no serious journalist or historian that backs such a theory, Bamford certainly didn’t. Lemnitzer like most of the JCS who backed the operation had been replaced before the crash.

GREG: “From James Bamford's book, Body of Secrets and quoted in the Wiki entry for Northwoods: Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

Relevance? I never disputed what was planned in the operation.

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 pretty much straight down as opposed to from an accute angle. The DoD acknowledged a month before the crash that U2's were overflying the island. Note also that one was shotdown near Beijing which is only about 50 miles inland.

It is not a matter of what I believe is true. I quoted the information from Powers book. Maybe it is as simple as needing overhead shots in some - or even most cases.

Which is why it was presumed and at time stated outright in several accounts that Hyde had flown over the island, thus even if it was claimed he was shot after leaving Cuban air space the incident would have little value as a ‘casus belli’

GREG: “No Len. I suggested [LHO] would be assumed to be in Cuba because that's what the evidence would point to.”

What ever went wrong? You still haven’t answered the question, how did his arrest spoil the party? And presuming that was the reason the invasion was called off why was the PREVALING line from the military since the hours afterwards that the plane plunged into the sea due to mechanical failure after a flyover?

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.

I've already given you the known facts. One suggested false flag op in Northwoods called for a USAF plane to appear to be shot down in International waters by Cuba. This bears a striking similarity to what the Hyde incident looked like - and happened less than 2 weeks prior to a planned invasion.

That’s not at all “what the Hyde incident looked like” it “looked like” what it presumably was a crash due to a mechanical problem with the plane after it had violated Cuban airspace. That’s one of the points you’d have to fit in, no attempt was made to make it appear that Cuba was responsible or that the flight had not overflown the island?

According to your theory the Kennedys rejected Northwoods but then (presumably) were behind a Northwoods like plot but instead of trying to blame the crash on Cuba they released a press statement saying there was “no evidence or indication” they were responsible. Either that or you are using a book that claims they backed the invasion to support your theory but believe it was planned behind their backs. In either case you still have to explain why a group you claim leaves “nothing…to chance” made no effort to blame Cuba but rather said the crash was an accident.

GREG: “That does not satisfy you simply because - despite what you say now - you want me to weave together a bunch of speculations - which - bit by bit you will nit pick and call for ever increasing minute detail.”

No I want you to “weave together” scenario in which they sabotaged the plane so as to make it appear it had been shot down by Cuba without provocation but the jist of the reports was that it was the complete opposite and the crash site was too far from Cuba to have been realistically cause by forces from that country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg: "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 Gulfof Tonkin would soon give just such a pretext [in Viet Nam]."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=141

"9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destoryed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack...."

From JCS Central Files 1962-63

Northwoods, Page 141

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg: "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 Gulfof Tonkin would soon give just such a pretext [in Viet Nam]."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=141

"9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destoryed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack...."

From JCS Central Files 1962-63

Northwoods, Page 141

Was there a point there Bill? No one disputes that this was the one of the proposed Northwoods scenarios. The problem with Greg's theory was that no effort was made to portray the crash as being caused by Cuban attack, to the contrary the prevaling message from the White House, military and press was that it was due to mechanical failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg: "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 Gulfof Tonkin would soon give just such a pretext [in Viet Nam]."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=141

"9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destoryed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack...."

From JCS Central Files 1962-63

Northwoods, Page 141

I have intentionally stayed away from this thread after the initial crap storm materialized between myself and Mr. Colby. All I care to add, is that there is something inherently bogus about certain threads on the Forum. As a case in point, I would direct the readers attention to the Thread "The Trouble with Conspiracy Theories." Now that was a great use of time.......and yes I am being sarcastic......What did the thread prove other than the fact there are two different factions on the Forum, which do not have exactly warm bubbly feelings for each other or their respective views......

But to get back to the original reason I decided to add to this thread, there is something very screwed up, in certain techniques on this Forum which consists of presenting the facts regarding both sides of the issue, and engaging in this pattern of, "there might have been smoke, but there certainly was no fire."

I trust we are all intelligent enough to understand what that means, in case there are some simpletons who don't get it, merely identify fire and conspiracy and you will understand....

Which leads to the next and most important point I intend to make...All of this is presented as if, there were no documents left to be declassified....Point being, that certain people, the one's who challenge any notion of our own government's ability to be dishonest with regards to the truth, seem to forget that......It must be quite convenient.......

One of the aspects of the U-2 crash that I focused on initially was the fact that Captain Hyde's last name was the same last name that comes up in reference to the Paine surname, so when I began the thread that was very much in my mind, although it is pretty certain that there was no genealogical relationship between these two families, if there is, I am certainly not aware of it.

Bill Kelly's last post sums up the conceptualization behind the possibility that could point to another completely different reason why there seems to be such a lack of information about the exact chain of events of this U-2 from the time it took off to the time it crashed.....

And my last point is to address the ideological divide here on the Forum.....it is a quote from someone besides myself.....

"And those of us who know how to research and know how to look things up and know how to ask questions, when we look into this and say, you have serious problems with this story, we are then painted as disinformation agents. Some of these people, and I don't wish to cast the research community with such a wide brush, but they want to seek the truth but you had better find the right truth or you are in trouble."

Gary Mack

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index66.htm

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have intentionally stayed away from this thread after the initial crap storm materialized between myself and Mr. Colby.

If you go back over that part of the thread you will see that it was you who transformed it into a “crap storm” my replies were polite yours were hostile.

But to get back to the original reason I decided to add to this thread, there is something very screwed up, in certain techniques on this Forum which consists of presenting the facts regarding both sides of the issue, and engaging in this pattern of, "there might have been smoke, but there certainly was no fire."

Strawman, a fairer representation of my position would be “there was no smoke or heat, there doesn’t seem to have been anything combustible thus there almost certainly was no fire”

I trust we are all intelligent enough to understand what that means, in case there are some simpletons who don't get it, merely identify fire and conspiracy and you will understand....

Conclusion based on a false premise.

Which leads to the next and most important point I intend to make...All of this is presented as if, there were no documents left to be declassified

Some documents related to this might still be classified, but nothing in the available evidence suggests the crash was anything but accidental. I qualify that nothing I’ve seen even after reading:

• the postings of the Cod$#!t blog,

• your and Greg’s posts here

• every newspaper or magazine article I could find about the crash including one by Hyde’s son

• various articles about the U-2 program (including one by Hyde III) and other crashes,

- and after exchanging emails with Hyde’s son and the head of his flight crew suggests foul play or hostile fire were involved.

...Point being, that certain people, the one's who challenge any notion of our own government's ability to be dishonest

Another strawman the government lies all the time I don’t think were gotten the truth about the assassination, lots of lies were told about the Vietnam War and more recently about WMD’s in Iraq, the EPA lied about pollution at Ground Zero several lies were told about warnings that something like 9/11 was in the works and I don’t think it was a coincidence the Embassy hostages were released just after Bonzo was sworn in shall I go on? Just because I don’t believe every baseless cockamamie theory proposed here doesn’t mean my position is that the government is never dishonest.

Bill Kelly's last post sums up the conceptualization behind the possibility that could point to another completely different reason why there seems to be such a lack of information about the exact chain of events of this U-2 from the time it took off to the time it crashed.....

The amount of information available seems to be equal to or greater than other U-2 crashes of the period how many of the details about the Anderson and Hickman crashes are known? I imagine you can get a lot more info from Hyde’s son.

And my last point is to address the ideological divide here on the Forum.....it is a quote from someone besides myself.....

"And those of us who know how to research and know how to look things up and know how to ask questions, when we look into this and say, you have serious problems with this story, we are then painted as disinformation agents…”

Mack’s comments apply much better to the assassination than the Hyde crash. Based on your initial post your suspicion was based on poor research that lead to a false premise (i.e. that the story was buried in the press)”

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nothing that has been said thus far has refuted the fact that the incident could have been used as a NORTHWOODS event to spark an invasion of Cuba?

Right?

BK

Having any exchange with you Len is a complete waste of time, yes you were polite and I was hostile...But you seem to forget my hostility was due to the fact that you went to Captain Hyde's son and referred to me as a conspiracy theorist which was insulting and belittling on its own merits, who wouldn't be a little agitated. The only reason I am bringing it up, is due to the fact that you brought it up.

Also, my initial posts were to have an exchange of ideas with other members of the Forum, you mischaracterized my own intent, and characterized my initial post as an allegation, when it was simply speculation; which did not help matters any....

I would remind you that I am the only person who knew what my intent was, unless you believe you have psychic powers, maybe we could leave it at that.

I have watched you post here on the Forum ocassionally, and you have a penchant for always trying to have the last word, and approaching any exchange of ideas as a debating contest.....I suppose you do that rather well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nothing that has been said thus far has refuted the fact that the incident could have been used as a NORTHWOODS event to spark an invasion of Cuba?

Right?

BK

Right on, Bill.

Len has relied all too predictably on the words of those associated by blood or employment with the U2 program which by its nature calls for duplicity and concealment.

His stance has become so twisted, he now admits he knows that the USG lied as a matter of routine and to prove he knows, he goes into a laundry list of incidents. And yet...every utterance from those with vested interests regarding the U2 is believable?

Len has continually tried to draw points of similarity between this U2 incident and others.

I have no problem with that. Now can he show what amount of debris was located in all those other cases, and in how many of those others, no pilot - dead or alive - was ever recovered?

I have not found any that share those points with the Hyde case, though I may have missed it or them.

But let's go back to the Northwoods document.

9.
It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made.
The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

c.
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
.

"Fly directly west at a low altitude" - why? To fly under the radar, Len - that's why, so it looks like you came down quick.

The pilot would be using an alias - oh I don't know, maybe something like Johnson?

A few parts would be disbursed into the ocean. What was found of the Hyde plane? A few parts and an oil slick.

AS for type of press coverage received in such cases, let's look at the most recent:

BBC 2005:

US spy plane crash in Gulf state

A US spy plane has crashed while returning to its base in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), killing the pilot, US officials have said.

The U-2 plane had completed a mission in support of US forces in Afghanistan when the crash occurred on Tuesday.

The cause is unclear - but there is no indication that hostile fire was involved, Pentagon officials say.

Washington has an agreement with the UAE, allowing US forces to use some of the country's military facilities.

The U-2 is a high-altitude surveillance aircraft first developed in the Cold War and manned by a single pilot.

Regional sensitivities

Pentagon officials - speaking on condition of anonymity
- told US media that the plane had come down as it was trying to land in the UAE.

“ The specific location is not releasable due to host nation sensitivities ”

US Air Force Capt David W Small

The military has not so far officially confirmed the location of the crash citing "host nation sensitivities".

The pilot's unit - the 380th Expeditionary Wing - is based at the Al-Dhafra air base, near Abu Dhabi.

The site of the crash has been secured and an investigation is underway.

The US military said the plane was returning from a mission in support of Enduring Freedom - codename for operations in Afghanistan.

The name of the pilot will not be released until next of kin are informed.

"The airmen of the 380th Expeditionary Wing mourn the loss of a true American hero in the service of his country," Col Darryl Burke, the wing's commander, said in a statement.

Cold War stalwart

The long, thin plane, with a wing-span of 100 feet (30.5m) is able to cruise at 90,000ft (27,430m) - more than 17 miles (27km) up - so high that the pilot has to wear a spacesuit.

The U-2 was an invaluable US surveillance tool during the Cold War, able to photograph Soviet military facilities and operating in great secrecy.

In 1960 a U-2 was shot down by a volley of Soviet surface-to-air missiles. The pilot, G

It was also a U-2 that took the photographs of Soviet missiles being put into Cuba in October 1962.

Defence experts say the original U-2 aircraft were highly unsafe and 80-90% of them eventually crashed
or were shot down.

But later versions, the U-2R and U-2S, though 40% bigger, are much more reliable.

Maybe in the Hyde case, something did go wrong and he bailed out, but got picked up by the Cubans, who found "Johnson" ID on him.

Whatever.... what Len perceives as Pentagon equivocation via the press may well have been caused by the plan going amiss and needing time to decide whether to proceed. The door being left open on a Cuban shoot-down allowed just such a breathing space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having any exchange with you Len is a complete waste of time

Seemingly the “sour grapes” perspective of someone who proposed a theory based on a faulty assumption and then was unable produce a reasonable argument for or evidence in support of the theory after the premise was shown to be false.

"yes you were polite and I was hostile...But you seem to forget my hostility was due to the fact that you went to Captain Hyde's son and referred to me as a conspiracy theorist which was insulting and belittling on its own merits, who wouldn't be a little agitated. The only reason I am bringing it up, is due to the fact that you brought it up."

You’ve got your facts wrong once again. (what a surprise!)

You became hostile BEFORE I posted my exchange with Hyde.

HE initially referred to your “theory” (or “speculation” if you prefer) as “a conspiracy theory that should definietly be debunked” I then referred to myself as “the guy debunking that "conspiracy theory".”

I NEVER called you a 'conspiracy theorist', the only time I called your "theory" a "conspiracy theory" I put the phrase in quotes and was echoing his classification. You initially claimed to have been offended that I contacted him, bizarre if you really wanted to get to bottom of the story

"Also, my initial posts were to have an exchange of ideas with other members of the Forum, "

Odd then that you so objected to our “exchange of ideas” it seems like what you really meant was you were only interested in exchanges that didn’t contradict your “speculation”

"you mischaracterized my own intent, and characterized my initial post as an allegation, when it was simply speculation; which did not help matters any....

I would remind you that I am the only person who knew what my intent was, unless you believe you have psychic powers, maybe we could leave it at that."

It seemed to me, and Hyde’s son as well, that you were suggesting that the crash was some sort of Northwoods type incident. You wrote (reply 4), “I would state the obvious, that it is a either or, proposition, unless it was damaged by a near miss and made it back a few miles before crashing, there is another more sinister possibility that I will not elaborate on except to say, that it involves a similar set of circumstances to the downing of Francis Gary Powers U-2 "before it took off"”. That went beyond “simple speculation”.

Bill wrote:

But nothing that has been said thus far has refuted the fact that the incident could have been used as a NORTHWOODS event to spark an invasion of Cuba?

Right?

This is a negative that would be difficult to completely refute. You are reversing the burden of proof. It would be more accurate to say “nothing that has been said thus far suggests that the incident was intended to be used as a NORTHWOODS event to spark an invasion of Cuba” No it can’t be completely refuted but there is a lot of evidence against it.

In 1952 Bertrand Russell wrote:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len has relied all too predictably on the words of those associated by blood or employment with the U2 program which by its nature calls for duplicity and concealment.

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.

“His stance has become so twisted, he now admits he knows that the USG lied as a matter of routine and to prove he knows, he goes into a laundry list of incidents. And yet...every utterance from those with vested interests regarding the U2 is believable?”

Strawman I never made such a statement. 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.

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

“Len has continually tried to draw points of similarity between this U2 incident and others.

I have no problem with that. Now can he show what amount of debris was located in all those other cases, and in how many of those others, no pilot - dead or alive - was ever recovered?”

You are reversing the burden of proof you are the one suggesting something was amiss. In any case you missed the obvious:

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 or where the plane crashed. If you are serious about finding out more you can file FOIA requests for the Hyde crash report and info about the crashes with insufficient info. Once you’ve gotten sufficient info about all (or at least most) U2 crashes get back to us.

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

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

http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com...px?img=35359634

http://swtexaslive.com/october2006/hyde

But let's go back to the Northwoods document.

9.
It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made.

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.
The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary.

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

“c. 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.
.

Hyde’s wreckage was 10x that distance “off the Cuban coast” apparently most of the plane was recovered not just parts

“The pilot would be using an alias - oh I don't know, maybe something like Johnson?”

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?

“A few parts would be disbursed into the ocean. What was found of the Hyde plane? A few parts and an oil slick.”

Wrong That’s all that was found immediately after the crash the “wreckage” was found the next day, (see above).
AS for type of press coverage received in such cases, let's look at the most recent:

BBC 2005:

US spy plane crash in Gulf state

A US spy plane has crashed while returning to its base in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), killing the pilot, US officials have said.

The U-2 plane had completed a mission in support of US forces in Afghanistan when the crash occurred on Tuesday.

The cause is unclear - but there is no indication that hostile fire was involved, Pentagon officials say.

I imagine there is a point lurking in there, it completely eluded however. Was a later attempt made to make it appear the plane had been shot down?

Defence experts say the original U-2 aircraft were highly unsafe and 80-90% of them eventually crashed
or were shot down.

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

"Maybe in the Hyde case, something did go wrong and he bailed out, but got picked up by the Cubans, who found "Johnson" ID on him."

Are you backing away from your sabotage theory? As for “Johnson” see above.

"Whatever.... what Len perceives as Pentagon equivocation via the press may well have been caused by the plan going amiss and needing time to decide whether to proceed. The door being left open on a Cuban shoot-down allowed just such a breathing space."

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.
Edited by Len Colby
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...