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

[Evan Burton]

So then, that IS an option in the determining of what became of Hyde's U2, that went down within days of President Kennedy's assassination, and was based at the SAC base in La. where SAIC John W. Rice was at the time of the assassination, and like Power's U2 downing that spoiled Eisenhower's detante with the USSR, and the U2 shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which LeMay wanted to use as an excuse to exercise "rules of engagement" and retaliate by knocking out the missile site, thus sparking WWIII, it appears that the downing of a U2 during a major international crisis is not a coincidence but should be the subject of special attention.

Yea Evan, it wasn't sabatoge by an enemy combatant, it was just a practical joke by one of his ground crew.

Bill,

I don't know why you keep missing the point I am making. Was sabotage possible? Yes - but you have no proof of it. I can make a hypothesis that the aircraft was brought down by a SAM. I can put forward a hypothesis that it was brought down by a MiG 21.... but there is no evidence to support these hypotheses, even though there is nothing to say they are wrong. What I am also saying is that there is nothing to says that the AIB was wrong in their conclusions.

You can be certain that if it was me on a mission, I wouldn't accept you as a wingman.

Well, everyone is entitle to their own opinion but luckily for me you are not an aviator.

[William Kelly]

So then, that IS an option in the determining of what became of Hyde's U2, that went down within days of President Kennedy's assassination, and was based at the SAC base in La. where SAIC John W. Rice was at the time of the assassination, and like Power's U2 downing that spoiled Eisenhower's detante with the USSR, and the U2 shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which LeMay wanted to use as an excuse to exercise "rules of engagement" and retaliate by knocking out the missile site, thus sparking WWIII, it appears that the downing of a U2 during a major international crisis is not a coincidence but should be the subject of special attention.

Yea Evan, it wasn't sabatoge by an enemy combatant, it was just a practical joke by one of his ground crew.

Bill,

I don't know why you keep missing the point I am making. Was sabotage possible? Yes - but you have no proof of it. I can make a hypothesis that the aircraft was brought down by a SAM. I can put forward a hypothesis that it was brought down by a MiG 21.... but there is no evidence to support these hypotheses, even though there is nothing to say they are wrong. What I am also saying is that there is nothing to says that the AIB was wrong in their conclusions.

You can be certain that if it was me on a mission, I wouldn't accept you as a wingman.

Well, everyone is entitle to their own opinion but luckily for me you are not an aviator.

Your points are well taken, understood and acknowledged. Aviator wingman or sidekick on a horse, you've failed to do your duty as a forum moderator so why should anybody trust you along side them in a serious combat situation?

I am not insisting that it was sabotage, or enemy fire, or mechanical malfunction, I'm just saying that sabotage must be figured into the equasion as it happened to Hyde in the past, and that the downing of a U2 at anytime is a significant event that deserves special attention, and can't be just dismissed as routine.

Apparently the ground crew playing such practical jokes is customary and routine in the Australian Navy, and not considered sabotage, but call it what you will, the guy who did it to Hyde got punched out, and it seems like he got what was coming to him. And Hyde wasn't reprimanded as he continued to fly until Nov. 20, 1963.

And I doubt very much his mission was to routinely look for Ruskie Missiles, since the Cuban Missile Crisis had been resolved for 13 months.

BK

[Evan Burton]

I am not insisting that it was sabotage, or enemy fire, or mechanical malfunction, I'm just saying that sabotage must be figured into the equasion as it happened to Hyde in the past, and that the downing of a U2 at anytime is a significant event that deserves special attention, and can't be just dismissed as routine.

And I agree - it was NOT a routine event and should be subjected to scrutiny.

Apparently the ground crew playing such practical jokes is customary and routine in the Australian Navy, and not considered sabotage, but call it what you will, the guy who did it to Hyde got punched out, and it seems like he got what was coming to him. And Hyde wasn't reprimanded as he continued to fly until Nov. 20, 1963.

An undeserved insult to the hard working maintenance personnel who keep the ADF's aircraft serviceable and airborne, and one that I am surprised to come from a person who has always shown even temperament and good judgment.

The T-33 incident involved a check pilot, and they stupidly decided to shut down the engine on short finals in order to 'evaluate' the performance of the pilot under review. I can fully understand Hyde's anger and decision to flatten the idiot who did this. The lack of subsequent charge (CUBO?) would seem to indicate his superiors agreed with his opinion of the check pilot. As I have said before, a stupid and dangerous technique.

And I doubt very much his mission was to routinely look for Ruskie Missiles, since the Cuban Missile Crisis had been resolved for 13 months.

BK

Are you sure? Was not regular reconnaissance of Cuba a strategic aim? If not of the CIA then of the US DoD in general? I seem to remember some declassified CIA documents saying such, but will try to find them (if I have remembered correctly).

[John Dolva]

Evan, was there, and if so, what was the recognised national airspace altitude then?

[William Kelly]

Hyde: One story relayed to me about my father was of a check ride he endured in the T-33 upon arrival at Laughlin. On short final to Laughlin AFB's Runway 13 for final landing, the evaluator pilot deliberately shut off the fuel switches causing the engine to flame out just before touchdown. My father landed safely and allowed the aircraft to coast to a stop. After both pilots egressed the aircraft, the evaluator smiled and admitted that he had deliberately shut off the fuel in order to evaluate how my father would handle it. Not amused by his illegal and dangerous act, my dad, who had arms of steel forged from years of football, cold cocked the evaluator pilot.

EB: Bill, the reason I ask because what you have highlighted above is NOT sabotage in my opinion. It is an incredibly stupid move by a check pilot but it is not sabotage in the mainstream meaning of the word. Unfortunately, this type of stupidity still turns up even today. Cases in point: a few years ago, the RAAF had a B707 crash because they practiced engine out asymmetric handling in flight, rather than in the simulator. It seems a similar situation was responsible for a crash recently in Darwin.

BK: Apparently the ground crew playing such practical jokes is customary and routine in the Australian Navy, and not considered sabotage, but call it what you will, the guy who did it to Hyde got punched out, and it seems like he got what was coming to him. And Hyde wasn't reprimanded as he continued to fly until Nov. 20, 1963.

EB: An undeserved insult to the hard working maintenance personnel who keep the ADF's aircraft serviceable and airborne, and one that I am surprised to come from a person who has always shown even temperament and good judgment.

BK: I wasn't trying to insult the hard working maintenance personnel who keep the ADF's aircraft serviceable and airborne, I was trying to insult you for saying it is routine procedure in the Australian Navy for the - correction - the training pilot not ground crew -try to trick the pilot -which makes it even more idiotic since if the screw up kills them both they won't know what caused the crash. My question isn't only what caused the U2 to crash, but what was its mission?

EB: Was not regular reconnaissance of Cuba a strategic aim? If not of the CIA then of the US DoD in general? I seem to remember some declassified CIA documents saying such, but will try to find them (if I have remembered correctly).

BK: Regular recon yes, but I doubt very much every mission was to routinely look for Ruskie Missiles, since the Cuban Missile Crisis had been resolved for 13 months. While they certainly look to finding Ruskie missiles as the U2s primary mission, and the one most discussed and recognized, I'll wager there were other missions that the U2 was tasked besides the primary one, esepecially so long after the crisis.

Just off the top of my head, how about looking for the wreckage of Rorke and Sullivan's Plane, which took off the previous Sept. 24 and disappeared over Cuba? Just that week Rorke's father-in-law, a CIA connected guy, had asked the FBI to help find out what happened to his son, and the FBI said it was out of their jurisdiciton and for the CIA to handle it. Maybe they did, and looked at the pictures to see if they could find the wreck?

Or how about having the U2 fly over the a JMWAVE maritime mission while it is underway, getting two flybys, one before and one after the mission?

If you had that capability, what else could it be used for?

More than just looking for cigars in the bushes.

BK

Edited April 4, 2010 by William Kelly

[Evan Burton]

John,

No, there wasn't one then... but the US acquiescence to the launching of Sputnik would suggest that 'space' was international, whilst 'airspace' was national.

Controlled airspace limits have traditionally been up to FL600 or 60,000 feet... or at least that is the extent to which NOTAMs will extend (unless describing a danger area, in which they will give the limits of the dangerous activity. A danger area is not restricted or prohibited airspace; it is simply a warning that a danger to aviation exists within the designated area).

[John Dolva]

Thank you Evan for helping with those questions. (No meaning to distract but to get a general overview of factors that could lead to various actions.)

edit:add so the approx U2 ceiling was about 20 000 m's (20 k's), the Clark Belt at 36 000 k's and no real set space airspace boundary?

edit:correction

Edited April 4, 2010 by John Dolva

[Evan Burton]

BK: I wasn't trying to insult the hard working maintenance personnel who keep the ADF's aircraft serviceable and airborne, I was trying to insult you for saying it is routine procedure in the Australian Navy for the - correction - the training pilot not ground crew -try to trick the pilot -which makes it even more idiotic since if the screw up kills them both they won't know what caused the crash. My question isn't only what caused the U2 to crash, but what was its mission?

Thank you. Without groundies no-one would fly... at least safely

I NEVER said this was a routine procedure in the RAN. I said that a similar event occurred in the RAAF some years ago. I also highlighted an event which was believed to be the cause of an accident (the report hasn't been finalised as yet). I also said that some people still commit some similar stupid acts (If you like, I'll go through the NTSB accident database and give some examples).

What was the purpose of that particular mission? I do not know - but I can suggest it was part of the regular surveillance missions flown.

EB: Was not regular reconnaissance of Cuba a strategic aim? If not of the CIA then of the US DoD in general? I seem to remember some declassified CIA documents saying such, but will try to find them (if I have remembered correctly).

BK: Regular recon yes, but I doubt very much every mission was to routinely look for Ruskie Missiles, since the Cuban Missile Crisis had been resolved for 13 months. While they certainly look to finding Ruskie missiles as the U2s primary mission, and the one most discussed and recognized, I'll wager there were other missions that the U2 was tasked besides the primary one, esepecially so long after the crisis.

Just off the top of my head, how about looking for the wreckage of Rorke and Sullivan's Plane, which took off the previous Sept. 24 and disappeared over Cuba? Just that week Rorke's father-in-law, a CIA connected guy, had asked the FBI to help find out what happened to his son, and the FBI said it was out of their jurisdiciton and for the CIA to handle it. Maybe they did, and looked at the pictures to see if they could find the wreck?

Or how about having the U2 fly over the a JMWAVE maritime mission while it is underway, getting two flybys, one before and one after the mission?

If you had that capability, what else could it be used for?

More than just looking for cigars in the bushes.

BK

I'll look for the events you mention Bill... but, again you have no evidence that the mission was specifically meant to detect Soviet ICBMs; all I know is that the aircraft was tasked to conduct overflight of Cuba. When someone shows us more detail, we'll have a better understanding of what it was doing.

[Evan Burton]

Thank you Evan for helping with those questions. (No meaning to distract but to get a general overview of factors that could lead to various actions.)

I've always had a 'conspiracy theory' of my own: that Eisenhower purposely prevented a US 'first orbital satellite' flight and allowed the USSR to take the lead in order to establish the "freedom of space".

[Evan Burton]

352. Telegram From Acting Secretary of State Ball and the President's Deputy Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kaysen) to the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) in Ireland

Washington, June 25, 1963, 7:45 p.m.

//Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, 6/24/63 Cuban Protest Note, 6/63-8/63. Top Secret; Eyes Only. President Kennedy was in Ireland June 25-29. Rusk was in the United Kingdom during the same time.

Sitto 8. From Ball and Kaysen. Bundy eyes only for the President and Rusk. In note from Cuban Government/1/ (delivered by Czech Ambassador this afternoon but intended for delivery June 21 or 22) protesting various exile activities directed against Cuba, following passages included:

.

.

.

As previously decided, there will be no low-level flights before President's return. High-level flights will continue under existing procedures which call for aborts when Cuban aircraft within 40 miles of U-2 and at altitude in excess of 40,000 feet.

Taking into account need for current intelligence, we believe this provides proper margin of safety to justify continued flights even under special conditions when President out of country.

353. Telegram From the Department of State to Secretary of State Rusk in the United Kingdom

Washington, June 26, 1963, 8:21 a.m.

//Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, General, 6/24/63 Cuban Protest Note, 6/63-8/63. Secret; Priority. This telegram was apparently also sent as White House telegram CAP 63345 to Ireland. There is a notation on it that the President read it.

Tosec 17. Deptel Sitto 8./1/ FYI. Following is ARA and INR analysis of Cuban note:

/1/Document 352.

.

.

.

In sum Department regards note as (a) cautiously and unprovocatively worded and carefully handled warning against overflights which affords Cubans flexibility with respect actual response they might make at least to high level flights; and ( as important step (additional to use MIG-21's vicinity U-2 flights) in effort force cessation overflights. High-level flight today was without incident.

Ball

358. Memorandum From the Deputy Secretary of Defense (Gilpatric) to President Kennedy

Washington, undated.

//Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 330, OSD Files: FRC 330-77-131, OSD Misc.--1963. Top Secret; Sensitive. This memorandum was undated and unsigned, but it was attached to an August 20 memorandum from Califano to Gilpatric recommending that the Deputy Secretary send it to the President. On August 26 Bundy sent Gilpatric a memorandum indicating that the President had signed this memorandum on August 22. The President asked Gilpatric to undertake the Top Secret and Sensitive distribution of this addition to rules of engagement.

SUBJECT

U.S. Action in the Event of Cuban Attack on U.S. Aircraft/Ships (U)

At your direction on 28 February 1963, Rules of Engagement were promulgated with respect to action by U.S. forces in event of a Cuban attack on U.S. aircraft or ships operating outside Cuban territory./1/ These rules prohibit U.S. forces from penetrating Cuban territory in pursuit of Cuban forces involved.

/1/See Document 290.

Under these rules, overflight of Cuban territory while en route to the scene of attack is not included in the authorized military options for responses to an attack by Cuba on U.S. aircraft or ships operating outside Cuban territory.

Incidents of Cuban attack on U.S. forces operating outside Cuban territory, which are considered most likely, would involve aircraft engaged in reconnaissance efforts, but also could involve U.S. shipping and cases where lives of U.S. nationals or national interests are in jeopardy. Should attacks occur, for example, south of western Cuba and north of eastern Cuba, the en route time for U.S. fighter support can be reduced by 10 to 30 minutes, with a comparable increase in time for action at the scene, by routing over Cuban territory. This quicker en route reaction time could be the difference between providing an effective defense for U.S. interests and arriving too late for action.

In light of the fact that occasions may arise where the presence of U.S. forces on the scene with least possible delay would be in the best national interests, a draft statement of policy which would authorize overflight of Cuban territory in certain instances, and under certain conditions, has been prepared and is attached. The draft policy has been approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, coordinated with the Department of State and, based on the recommendation of that Department, delineates the individuals in the military chain of command authorized to approve overflights of Cuban territory.

I recommend its approval.

Attachment

STATEMENT OF POLICY ON US ACTION IN EVENT OF CUBAN ATTACK ON US AIRCRAFT/SHIPS (U)

The following policy is issued pertaining to US action in the event of Cuban attack in the area surrounding Cuba against US aircraft/ships:

a. In specific instances in which adherence to international airspace would delay significantly the arrival of US fighter aircraft at the scene of a Cuban attack against US aircraft/ships operating outside of Cuban territory, overflight of Cuba by fighter aircraft is authorized subject to the following:

(1) It must be established that the US aircraft/ship is being attacked, or the US aircraft/ship has been attacked and lives of US personnel are endangered.

(2) Overflight times are minimized with due regard to risk to aircraft. While en route every effort will be taken to avoid provocative acts. Engagement will not be undertaken during the overflight except for self-defense against aircraft attack.

(3) From the time of arrival at the scene current rules of engagement will pertain, with return to home or diversion airfield via air space over international waters, if practicable.

(4) The most expeditious means possible will be used to inform highest national authorities that overflight of Cuba has been directed, and details on the action shall be furnished in the same manner.

b. Decision to overfly Cuban territory may be delegated to but not below the level of Commander Naval Base, Key West and Commander Naval Base, Guantanamo.

(my bolding)

http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/histo...XI/351_375.html

[Evan Burton]

Not necessarily directly related to what we are discussing, but interesting nevertheless:

March 21, 2010

U-2 Spy Plane Evades the Day of Retirement

By CHRISTOPHER DREW

The U-2 spy plane, the high-flying aircraft that was often at the heart of cold war suspense, is enjoying an encore.

Four years ago, the Pentagon was ready to start retiring the plane, which took its first test flight in 1955. But Congress blocked that, saying the plane was still useful.

.

.

.

But in 2006, a U-2 pilot almost crashed after drifting in and out of consciousness during a flight over Afghanistan. The pilot, Kevin Henry, now a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, said in an interview that he felt as if he were drunk, and he suffered some brain damage. At one point, he said, he came within five feet of smashing into the ground before miraculously finding a runway.

.

.

.

”

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/artic...y-of-retirement

[Len Colby]

QUOTE BK: and the idea that JFK's assassination is somehow connected to Cuban affairs, certainly adds credence to this idea.

LC: ?????

LC: I have no idea what you were trying to say.

BK: On reading anything about JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, you must be struck by the Cuban aspects of their bios, and how the Cuban Connections to the assassination hold the key to understanding what happened at Dealey Plaza. Of course the assassination doesn't make any sense if you take it out of the Cuban context, and then you can believe anything you want.

So all you have is that the plane crashed after flying over Cuba a few before the assassination

BK: You say coincidence, and to pharaprase David Atlee Phillips - "the intelligence profession does not encourage one to accept coincidence as the cause of events."

LC: To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, "some time a coincidence is just a coincidence" and in this case it seems that's all that it was. George Winston Bush the CIA who was a watch officer the night after the assassination attended the U of Hawaii the same time as Obama's parents. I think you should look into this, I mean it can't be just a coincidence right? Warren Earl Burger succeeded Earl Warren as CJ SCOTUS,that must have been an Illuminati trick. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4,1826, they must have been murdered, etc etc.

BK: You can go chase those coincidences if you want to.

A U2 crashing a few days before the assassination is not a very extraordinary one. Here’s a better one, JFK switched the landing site from Trinidad beach (the Trinidad Plan) to the Zapata Peninsula (Operation Zapapta), GHWB had a company named Zapata Offshore.

BK: "If you read the article you posted about Joe Hyde, the son, his father was the victim of a deliberate sabatage during a training mission,"

LC: ?????

LC: Reread the article he said nothing of the sort.

BK: "...and we suspect Powers' U2 was sabataged, so why would it be unthinkable to consider happening again?"

LC: Do you have any evidence to support your suspicion? Or are you using baseless speculation in one case to prop up baseless speculation in another?

Hyde: One story relayed to me about my father was of a check ride he endured in the T-33 upon arrival at Laughlin. On short final to Laughlin AFB's Runway 13 for final landing, the evaluator pilot deliberately shut off the fuel switches causing the engine to flame out just before touchdown. My father landed safely and allowed the aircraft to coast to a stop. After both pilots egressed the aircraft, the evaluator smiled and admitted that he had deliberately shut off the fuel in order to evaluate how my father would handle it. Not amused by his illegal and dangerous act, my dad, who had arms of steel forged from years of football, cold cocked the evaluator pilot.

How would Colby handle it?

Ah, shucks, it wasn't sabatoge, it was just a test, a practical joke, that's what it was, or was it just a coincidence?

Ask Evan has tried to explain to you according to Hyde III it WAS a test, albeit an “illegal and dangerous” one. It wasn’t sabotage unless “the evaluator pilot” was suicidal, he was on the plane as well, thus the incident which Hyde III is not even sure really took place does not fit your proposed scenario. Note that Hyde III and a member of his father’s flight crew said it would have been impossible to sabotage the plane. How exactly would one sabotage a U2 to suddenly crash hours after it had been at high altitude? Remember that it was so weight sensitive it didn’t have side wheels or stall strips and it used two rolls of film moving in opposite directions for balance. Hyde said his autopilot was not working so the sabotage would had to have been a two stage one.

[Len Colby]

you've failed to do your duty as a forum moderator so why should anybody trust you along side them in a serious combat situation?

Just what are you ranting about Bill?

[William Kelly]

you've failed to do your duty as a forum moderator so why should anybody trust you along side them in a serious combat situation?

Just what are you ranting about Bill?

Burton knows what I'm ranting about and that's all that matters.

BK

[William Kelly]

QUOTE BK: and the idea that JFK's assassination is somehow connected to Cuban affairs, certainly adds credence to this idea.

LC: ?????

LC: I have no idea what you were trying to say.

BK: On reading anything about JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby, you must be struck by the Cuban aspects of their bios, and how the Cuban Connections to the assassination hold the key to understanding what happened at Dealey Plaza. Of course the assassination doesn't make any sense if you take it out of the Cuban context, and then you can believe anything you want.

So all you have is that the plane crashed after flying over Cuba a few before the assassination

BK: You say coincidence, and to pharaprase David Atlee Phillips - "the intelligence profession does not encourage one to accept coincidence as the cause of events."

LC: To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, "some time a coincidence is just a coincidence" and in this case it seems that's all that it was. George Winston Bush the CIA who was a watch officer the night after the assassination attended the U of Hawaii the same time as Obama's parents. I think you should look into this, I mean it can't be just a coincidence right? Warren Earl Burger succeeded Earl Warren as CJ SCOTUS,that must have been an Illuminati trick. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4,1826, they must have been murdered, etc etc.

BK: You can go chase those coincidences if you want to.

BK: To paraphrase Ian Fleming - The first time it's a coincidence, the second time possibly happenstance, the third time enemy action.

BK: "If you read the article you posted about Joe Hyde, the son, his father was the victim of a deliberate sabatage during a training mission,"

LC: ?????

LC: Reread the article he said nothing of the sort.

BK: "...and we suspect Powers' U2 was sabataged, so why would it be unthinkable to consider happening again?"

LC: Do you have any evidence to support your suspicion? Or are you using baseless speculation in one case to prop up baseless speculation in another?

Hyde: One story relayed to me about my father was of a check ride he endured in the T-33 upon arrival at Laughlin. On short final to Laughlin AFB's Runway 13 for final landing, the evaluator pilot deliberately shut off the fuel switches causing the engine to flame out just before touchdown. My father landed safely and allowed the aircraft to coast to a stop. After both pilots egressed the aircraft, the evaluator smiled and admitted that he had deliberately shut off the fuel in order to evaluate how my father would handle it. Not amused by his illegal and dangerous act, my dad, who had arms of steel forged from years of football, cold cocked the evaluator pilot.

How would Colby handle it?

Ah, shucks, it wasn't sabatoge, it was just a test, a practical joke, that's what it was, or was it just a coincidence?

Ask Evan has tried to explain to you according to Hyde III it WAS a test, albeit an "illegal and dangerous" one. It wasn't sabotage unless "the evaluator pilot" was suicidal, he was on the plane as well, thus the incident which Hyde III is not even sure really took place does not fit your proposed scenario. Note that Hyde III and a member of his father's flight crew said it would have been impossible to sabotage the plane. How exactly would one sabotage a U2 to suddenly crash hours after it had been at high altitude? Remember that it was so weight sensitive it didn't have side wheels or stall strips and it used two rolls of film moving in opposite directions for balance. Hyde said his autopilot was not working so the sabotage would had to have been a two stage one.

Colby: A U2 crashing a few days before the assassination is not a very extraordinary one. Here's a better one, JFK switched the landing site from Trinidad beach (the Trinidad Plan) to the Zapata Peninsula (Operation Zapapta), GHWB had a company named Zapata Offshore.

Kelly: Please site your source for the fact that JFK himself switched the landing site from Trinidad beach to the Zapata Peninsula. That is certainly not a coincidence.

Edited April 4, 2010 by William Kelly