Friendly Fire Notebook

.. .

Sounds like a great show, I can't wait. Although I am concerned that Michel
left over a disagreement. Out of him and Eschmann, I find Michel's book much
better documented and supported. Eschmann's book contains both the myth about
the BUFF-MiG shoot downs and the "hybrid" FAN SONG-LOW BLOW radar. Michel
gets
the word right from the horses mouth on both those issues.


Checkout the web page.

http://www.teleproductiongroup.com/12_72-main.html

Lots of extracts from the interviews. Ed's mug is there and I suppose mine
will there there eventually. Karl is there as well. Ray really bit on some of
my wildass tales, oops, I meant accounts.

The outcome will truly be interesting.

I have known Karl for a long time. .We were stationed at Tinker and Korat
together. I have always known him to be a man of high integrity. I don't know
Michael. I am not in a position to say who is right or wrong here but I know
the accounts of the MiG shootdowns and the hybrid radar were pretty convincing
to me when I heard them at Korat. Michael's book contains other information
that desn't pass the logic test to me so I guess we each have to judge for
ourselves. Karl's original manuscript reads like a medical examiners report and
everything else in the book seems quite precise and acurate almost to a fault.

MIchael apparently was a lot more into nitty gtitty details of LB II than Ray
wanted to go. This isn't meant to be a definitive history just an account from
the eyes and ears of the people who particpated including the maintainers,
rescuers, and POWs.

Steve.

I have known Karl for a long time. .We were stationed at Tinker and Korat
together. I have always known him to be a man of high integrity.

Please don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both Eschmann's and Michel's book and I
don't believe Eschmann intentionally mislead anyone in his book, he conducted
very detailed interviews of participants and used official USAF documents.
Michel went a step further. He confirmed through both Soviet and Vietnamese
sources that they had no LOW BLOWs in country before 1975, thus dispelling the
"hybrid radar" myth. As far as dispelling the MiG shootdown, Michel again went
one step further and inteviewed Vietnamese Air Force officers and was allowed
access to their official documents. Michel concluded there were no MiG-21s in
the area of the BUFFs on either night. Michel also concluded they were probably
shooting at F-4s who dived away, but Ed questions that aspect. I believe the
exact circumstances of those two incidents will never be known.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Date: 4/22/2004 8:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I have known Karl for a long time. .We were stationed at Tinker and Korat
together. I have always known him to be a man of high integrity.

Please don't get me wrong, I enjoyed both Eschmann's and Michel's book and I
don't believe Eschmann intentionally mislead anyone in his book, he conducted
very detailed interviews of participants and used official USAF documents.
Michel went a step further. He confirmed through both Soviet and Vietnamese
sources that they had no LOW BLOWs in country before 1975, thus dispelling the
"hybrid radar" myth. As far as dispelling the MiG shootdown, Michel again went
one step further and inteviewed Vietnamese Air Force officers and was allowed
access to their official documents. Michel concluded there were no MiG-21s in
the area of the BUFFs on either night. Michel also concluded they were probably
shooting at F-4s who dived away, but Ed questions that aspect. I believe the
exact circumstances of those two incidents will never be known.



************************************

I agree with Ed. Trying to get an F-4 that highand to keep up with the bombers
in the configurations we had was not much more than a pipe dream So far as
official records are concerned, I can tell you that I have read some of the
accounts if operations I was involved in, in Korea and SEA, in the 70s and what
happened are not always one and the same.

We had a debate here sometime back about a plane that I flew in Korea and later
went to SEA to shoot down a couple of MiGs. Supposedly that plane wasn't even
at the base I was at but my official flight records show that I did indeed fly
it.

Having been involved with a couple of accident boards as well, I can tell you
that if the official record, for the USAF at least, is 90% accurate, it is a
wonder.

The process we are centering our debates around starts out with personal
recollections, partially inaccurate records, subjective conclusions then a ll
that suddenly becomes fact. Like saying that I heard Dan Blather say it on TV,
so it must be true.

I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything else.

I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything
else.


Well, often first hand accounts are wrong, or at best conflicting. For example
Ed doesn't believe the BUFF-MiG-21 shootdowns, but you and both B-52 aircrews
involved do. I find first hand accounts good for supporting data, personally I
prefer records, although as you pointed out these are often incorrect too.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything
else.


Well, often first hand accounts are wrong, or at best conflicting. For example
Ed doesn't believe the BUFF-MiG-21 shootdowns, but you and both B-52 aircrews
involved do. I find first hand accounts good for supporting data, personally I
prefer records, although as you pointed out these are often incorrect too.


BUFDRVR


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.
--

-Gord.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:39:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.

As we've been discussing, there are "witnesses" and there are
"Witnesses". The eyewitness recollection of Joe Bagadonutz, the night
shift fry-cook at the local McBurgerWendBell, on the condition of a
crashing tactical fighter might not be very reliable. The eyewitness
observation of a qualified aircrewmember in the type who was in
position might be of considerable value.

Put a student tactical aviator in charge of the debrief after his
first 2-v-1 sortie and you won't get much of value. Put the lead IP at
the whiteboard with his three colored markers, HUD tape and commentary
and you'll get a pretty accurate picture. Add the input of any
supporting IPs in the flight and you'll be almost perfect. Now add the
mission controller (if used) and the ACMI recreation and you've got
exactly what happened.

Evaluating the qualification of the observer is a critical part of the
process. "I seen this big ol' airyplane sort of wallowing around and
it looked like he was on fahr. There was smoke coming off of his wings
an' his motor was sputtering and like all choked up. Then his back
winder sort of just blew off that thang and he jumped out right after
that."


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:39:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.

As we've been discussing, there are "witnesses" and there are
"Witnesses". The eyewitness recollection of Joe Bagadonutz, the night
shift fry-cook at the local McBurgerWendBell, on the condition of a
crashing tactical fighter might not be very reliable. The eyewitness
observation of a qualified aircrewmember in the type who was in
position might be of considerable value.

Put a student tactical aviator in charge of the debrief after his
first 2-v-1 sortie and you won't get much of value. Put the lead IP at
the whiteboard with his three colored markers, HUD tape and commentary
and you'll get a pretty accurate picture. Add the input of any
supporting IPs in the flight and you'll be almost perfect. Now add the
mission controller (if used) and the ACMI recreation and you've got
exactly what happened.

Evaluating the qualification of the observer is a critical part of the
process.

Sure is, but experience only helps, it doesn't guarantee complete
accuracy. I'm reminded of an account told to me by an IAF pilot, of an
IAF helo accident which a very experienced Canadian military helo pilot
(instructor etc.) witnessed from the ground in the Sinai (IIRR, it was
during the Israeli pullout in 1982). He was the best eyewitness they had,
although they later found someone who had filmed it. When questioned,
among the things he stated was that the a/c had definitely made 4-5
revolutions before ground impact (spins; IIRC, there was a tail rotor
failure of some kind). When they eventually got their hands on the film,
the a/c had clearly made only 1 1/2 revs before impact.

Guy

Subject: Friendly Fire Notebook
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 4/24/04 9:39 AM Paci

I'd personally believe personal accounts given first hand, than anything
else.


Well, often first hand accounts are wrong, or at best conflicting. For
example
Ed doesn't believe the BUFF-MiG-21 shootdowns, but you and both B-52
aircrews
involved do. I find first hand accounts good for supporting data, personally
I
prefer records, although as you pointed out these are often incorrect too.


BUFDRVR


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight

And whathapopens in the cases where the only accounts you have are first hand
eye witness accounts??? Then what?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote:

GB wrote:

The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight

And whathapopens in the cases where the only accounts you have are first hand
eye witness accounts??? Then what?

Arthur Kramer

Dunno Arthur, guess in that case yer kinda skrood aincha?...

Note the "first hand account" of a lady watching (from the
ground) the prang of the, what DC-8? 707? aircraft from South
America which ran out of fuel. "I watched the pilot standing at a
cockpit window waving a little red flag". She likely really
thought that she saw that, but it 'probably' didn't happen.

Of course what Ed says about experience has some value but even
the most experienced flyer can get rattled when presented with a
very traumatic happening causing him to 'fill in' areas that
might later be proven untrue. He really might believe that what
his mind 'filled in' happened when it couldn't have. The NTSB has
proven this many times.

Nothing to do with stupidity (or nobility either) just human
nature.
--

-Gord.