If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Vince" wrote in message
. .. Arved Sandstrom wrote: "Vince" wrote in message ... [ SNIP ] The hostility of the environment is clear. However Reconnaissance in an environment where you cannot openly protect your aircraft and are not establishing targets is not a battlefield. Vince ??? That makes no sense. AHS A firing squad is a dangerous place but its not a "battlefield" Vince No, but overflights where you may be shot at does qualify. A battlefield (or battle airspace) does not have as part of its definition that there needs to be a formally declared war. AHS |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On May 4, 11:07 am, Vince wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 4, 8:48 am, Vince wrote: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...04/ai_n8949287 Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace) Vince Vince, you are lost. You can fiddle with whether a document is legit or not and then turn around and say because a series of photographs are examined at a CIA facility, actually manned by both CIA and Pentagon people, that makes it a CIA job. Curtis Lemay made sure the Strategic Air Command and secondarily the U.S. Air Force knew the pilot that got those photos was a SAC pilot. it was a CIA flight part of a long standing CIA operation Still need to explain all those F8Us that got shot at in a non-battlefield. This is a separate issue Francis Gary Powers was not in a battlefield Around noon that day (October 27) a Lockheed U-2 piloted by Rudolph Anderson was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement, increasing the stress in negotiations between the USSR and the U.S. It was later learned that the decision to fire was made locally by a Soviet commander on his own authority, although exactly who this was is a matter of some debate. Why should a "battlefield" shoot increase stress? the reason is that its not a battlefield Later that day, at about 3:41 p.m., several F8U Crusader aircraft on low-level recce missions were fired upon, and one was hit by a 37 mm shell but managed to return to base. Still not a "battlefield" Vince http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba011.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba013.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba017.htm |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
"Vince" wrote in message ... Tankfixer wrote: In article , mumbled TMOliver wrote: "Vince" wrote ... Spies get shot at all the time Doesn't make it a "battlefield" they were CIA flights I guess they forgot to tell you that those VFP-62 pilots were in Navy flight suits flying USNavy a/c - big bright stars and all - out of NAS Key West, JAX or off CVA decks. TMO the U-2 flights were cia Yes, but did they take the photo's of the SA-2 sites from under 500 feet and in excess of 700 mph ? No, they didn't that is correct, but not the point of the discussion the Military is much better equipped and focused on battlefield reconnaissance than the CIA The U-2 was overwhelmingly a CIA project at that time. Part of the reason was that CIA missions violated the domestic or municipal law of the countries we were overflying. A U-2 pilot on an overflight was a spy and could be shot quite legally. No one could be "ordered" on such a mission. The low level flights were different. They were clearly belligerent acts by the US armed forces. As an act of war, anyone shot down was a POW. Vince The argument could be made that if you fly as high as a U-2, especially back in the early days, were you really in national airspace anyway? According to the FAI (Int'l Aeronautical Federation) near-space starts at 75,000 feet, and according to Wiki the U-2R has a service ceiling of 90,000 feet. no question if a plane can reach it is national airspace (ad coelem) To the best of my knowledge there isn't even any accepted altitude below which one is in territorial airspace. Clearly there sort of must be such an altitude, because nobody reasonably suggests that a satellite at 250 km is violating anything. Also, you can't necessarily say that airspace goes up to the level that balloons can reach or suborbital craft can reach or airfoils can maintain lift, because the definition of the maximum limits of a territorial sea is 12 miles, which in this day and age is highly artificial also. AHS there is a treaty on outer space. satellites are in outer space But that is a long way up Vince |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
"Vince" wrote in message . .. Arved Sandstrom wrote: "Vince" wrote in message ... [ SNIP ] The hostility of the environment is clear. However Reconnaissance in an environment where you cannot openly protect your aircraft and are not establishing targets is not a battlefield. Vince ??? That makes no sense. AHS A firing squad is a dangerous place but its not a "battlefield" Vince No, but overflights where you may be shot at does qualify. A battlefield (or battle airspace) does not have as part of its definition that there needs to be a formally declared war. not it doesn't. an escaping prisoner may be shot at, does not make it a "battlefield. Unless both sides can legally shoot its not a battlefield. Vince |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 4, 11:07 am, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 4, 8:48 am, Vince wrote: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...04/ai_n8949287 Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace) Vince Vince, you are lost. You can fiddle with whether a document is legit or not and then turn around and say because a series of photographs are examined at a CIA facility, actually manned by both CIA and Pentagon people, that makes it a CIA job. Curtis Lemay made sure the Strategic Air Command and secondarily the U.S. Air Force knew the pilot that got those photos was a SAC pilot. it was a CIA flight part of a long standing CIA operation Still need to explain all those F8Us that got shot at in a non-battlefield. This is a separate issue Francis Gary Powers was not in a battlefield Around noon that day (October 27) a Lockheed U-2 piloted by Rudolph Anderson was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement, increasing the stress in negotiations between the USSR and the U.S. It was later learned that the decision to fire was made locally by a Soviet commander on his own authority, although exactly who this was is a matter of some debate. Why should a "battlefield" shoot increase stress? the reason is that its not a battlefield Later that day, at about 3:41 p.m., several F8U Crusader aircraft on low-level recce missions were fired upon, and one was hit by a 37 mm shell but managed to return to base. Still not a "battlefield" Vince http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba011.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba013.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba017.htm The President approved the recommendation for a U-2 flight, to be piloted by a Strategic Air Command pilot, or a military pilot attached to the Central Intelligence Agency. document 11 it was up to the CIA to decide It was then agreed that future information would be disseminated to members of USIB, with appropriate instructions that only those responsible for giving the President advice be given the information. Furthermore, that within CIA circles a minimum number of experts be informed. McCone stated there was no problem in CIA, that it was secure. It was therefore agreed that the USIB members would be instructed to restrict the information to their personal offices and fully and currently inform the Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman, the Service Secretaries and the Secretary of Defense document 12 This document clearly shows that the CIA was controlling the distribution under the direct orders of the president. this is completely inconsistent with it being a USAF operation document 13 does not mention the U-2 Docuemnt 17 does not mention the U-2 Vince |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On May 4, 11:52 am, Vince wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 4, 11:07 am, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 4, 8:48 am, Vince wrote: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...04/ai_n8949287 Better give names dates and places of deliberate overflights of territory, not cruisng past the border (airspace) Vince Vince, you are lost. You can fiddle with whether a document is legit or not and then turn around and say because a series of photographs are examined at a CIA facility, actually manned by both CIA and Pentagon people, that makes it a CIA job. Curtis Lemay made sure the Strategic Air Command and secondarily the U.S. Air Force knew the pilot that got those photos was a SAC pilot. it was a CIA flight part of a long standing CIA operation Still need to explain all those F8Us that got shot at in a non-battlefield. This is a separate issue Francis Gary Powers was not in a battlefield Around noon that day (October 27) a Lockheed U-2 piloted by Rudolph Anderson was shot down by an SA-2 Guideline SAM emplacement, increasing the stress in negotiations between the USSR and the U.S. It was later learned that the decision to fire was made locally by a Soviet commander on his own authority, although exactly who this was is a matter of some debate. Why should a "battlefield" shoot increase stress? the reason is that its not a battlefield Later that day, at about 3:41 p.m., several F8U Crusader aircraft on low-level recce missions were fired upon, and one was hit by a 37 mm shell but managed to return to base. Still not a "battlefield" Vince http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba011.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba013.htm http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba017.htm The President approved the recommendation for a U-2 flight, to be piloted by a Strategic Air Command pilot, or a military pilot attached to the Central Intelligence Agency. document 11 it was up to the CIA to decide It was then agreed that future information would be disseminated to members of USIB, with appropriate instructions that only those responsible for giving the President advice be given the information. Furthermore, that within CIA circles a minimum number of experts be informed. McCone stated there was no problem in CIA, that it was secure. It was therefore agreed that the USIB members would be instructed to restrict the information to their personal offices and fully and currently inform the Chiefs of Staff, the Chairman, the Service Secretaries and the Secretary of Defense document 12 This document clearly shows that the CIA was controlling the distribution under the direct orders of the president. this is completely inconsistent with it being a USAF operation document 13 does not mention the U-2 But it does outline the options being considered. Docuemnt 17 does not mention the U-2 But it does describe an operation (Ortsac) in which an invasion of a Caribbean land is invaded. The reason the switch from CIA to Air Forces is not discussed on a document is that it was a violent and noisy fight between the CIA that knew there were missile bases in Pinar del Rio and LeMay who wanted his boys to get the glory. The Pentagon backed LeMay. Scoop Jackson's memoirs, which I have quoted previously show that is the President who makes the decision to use Air Force pilots for th slim possibility they will be made priosners of war and not killed as spies. Vince |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 4, 11:52 am, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: The reason the switch from CIA to Air Forces is not discussed on a document is that it was a violent and noisy fight between the CIA that knew there were missile bases in Pinar del Rio and LeMay who wanted his boys to get the glory. The Pentagon backed LeMay. Scoop Jackson's memoirs, which I have quoted previously show that is the President who makes the decision to use Air Force pilots for th slim possibility they will be made priosners of war and not killed as spies. Vince now I know you are deeply confused: here is the source you supplied for your claim President Kennedy authorized an increase of U-2 missions over the island. This increase in aerial reconnaissance coverage was caveated with the limit that all future U-2 flights were to be conducted with USAF personnel and U-2’s from the Strategic Air Command. (124) President Kennedy ordered the change from CIA to USAF missions in case there were any shootdowns or losses. His reasoning was that USAF pilots could be protected and treated as Prisoners of War versus CIA pilots who would be considered spies. (125) here is the reference in the source (125) Jackson, 116. your cite has a bibliography http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/77ColdWarS...01biblgphy.htm the reference for the Kennedy claim is to Jackson, Robert. High Cold War: Strategic Air Reconnaissance and the Electronic Intelligence War. Somerset: Patrick Stephens Limited, 1998. Not senator Jackson and his "memoirs" Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson died in 1983 What is the source for Robert Jackson's claim ? Vince |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Vince" wrote in message . .. Daryl Hunt wrote: "Vince" wrote in message ... TMOliver wrote: "Vince" wrote ... Spies get shot at all the time Doesn't make it a "battlefield" they were CIA flights I guess they forgot to tell you that those VFP-62 pilots were in Navy flight suits flying USNavy a/c - big bright stars and all - out of NAS Key West, JAX or off CVA decks. TMO the U-2 flights were cia No, Vince, they were Air Force. Although the data collected is "share" with the CIA and other branches of the Government. Operational history Though both the Air Force and the Navy would eventually fly the U-2, it was originally a CIA operation. Due to the political implications of a military aircraft invading a country's airspace, only CIA U-2s conducted overflights. The pilots had to resign their military commissions before joining the CIA as civilians, a process they referred to as "sheep dipping".[1] You show nothing to the fact that people resigned to fly for the CIA. Meanwhile, you are confusing Air America that operated in Loas and Cambodia where AF people took a 6 mo leave of absence from the service to serve there. And, you can trust me, there were no U-2 flights by those folks nor were any supported by those folks and no medals given. overflights were always CIA operations https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol4...hoto_Gap_2.htm there were ongoing "turf battles" over the COMOR and idealist programs Vince, the CIA shares the U-2 Overflight information along with the various other Spook....er.... Intel Agencies and that includes the AF, Navy and Army as well. But the pilots have always been primarily AF pilots with a little Navy and Marines thrown in for giggles. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On May 4, 2:44 pm, Vince wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 4, 11:52 am, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: The reason the switch from CIA to Air Forces is not discussed on a document is that it was a violent and noisy fight between the CIA that knew there were missile bases in Pinar del Rio and LeMay who wanted his boys to get the glory. The Pentagon backed LeMay. Scoop Jackson's memoirs, which I have quoted previously show that is the President who makes the decision to use Air Force pilots for th slim possibility they will be made priosners of war and not killed as spies. Vince now I know you are deeply confused: here is the source you supplied for your claim President Kennedy authorized an increase of U-2 missions over the island. This increase in aerial reconnaissance coverage was caveated with the limit that all future U-2 flights were to be conducted with USAF personnel and U-2's from the Strategic Air Command. (124) President Kennedy ordered the change from CIA to USAF missions in case there were any shootdowns or losses. His reasoning was that USAF pilots could be protected and treated as Prisoners of War versus CIA pilots who would be considered spies. (125) here is the reference in the source (125) Jackson, 116. your cite has a bibliography http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/77ColdWarS...01biblgphy.htm the reference for the Kennedy claim is to Jackson, Robert. High Cold War: Strategic Air Reconnaissance and the Electronic Intelligence War. Somerset: Patrick Stephens Limited, 1998. Not senator Jackson and his "memoirs" Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson died in 1983 What is the source for Robert Jackson's claim ? Vince Dumb, thinking something obvious when it wasn't. Lots of books published after the author dies. I can't find Jackson as anything other than a book for sale. Two more documentation of Air Force, even DIA supervision of the October 14th flight. Otherwise I quit. http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2005/0805U2.asp In late August, Sen. Kenneth B. Keat*ing (R-N.Y.)-whose sources were probably Cuban exiles in Florida-said there was evidence of Soviet "rocket installations" in Cuba and urged Kennedy to act. Others, notably Sen. Homer E. Capehart (R-Ind.), joined in the call for action. Strangely, U-2 flights ceased for more than a month, from Sept. 5 to Oct. 14. One reason was bad weather, but another was anxiety on part of the President's advisors, who worried about the consequences of a U-2 shootdown. To the dismay of the CIA, the Air Force took over the U-2 missions when they resumed. The first flight was by Maj. Richard S. Heyser on Oct. 14. http://www2.mmae.ucf.edu/~rrm/mccoyhistg.htm The first overflight of Cuba by a U-2 occurred on 14 Oct 1962, when Maj. Steve Heyser left from Edwards AFB, CA and landed at McCoy AFB, FL. It would also, be the first (Defense Intel Agency) DIA-controlled U-2 mission. In six minutes over the target area, Major Heyser took 928 photos. · |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 4, 2:44 pm, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 4, 11:52 am, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: The reason the switch from CIA to Air Forces is not discussed on a document is that it was a violent and noisy fight between the CIA that knew there were missile bases in Pinar del Rio and LeMay who wanted his boys to get the glory. The Pentagon backed LeMay. Scoop Jackson's memoirs, which I have quoted previously show that is the President who makes the decision to use Air Force pilots for th slim possibility they will be made priosners of war and not killed as spies. Vince now I know you are deeply confused: Please accept my apology for the tone of this comment even confusion on a point should not generate such a comment this has been a most intelligent and enlightening discussion here is the source you supplied for your claim President Kennedy authorized an increase of U-2 missions over the island. This increase in aerial reconnaissance coverage was caveated with the limit that all future U-2 flights were to be conducted with USAF personnel and U-2's from the Strategic Air Command. (124) President Kennedy ordered the change from CIA to USAF missions in case there were any shootdowns or losses. His reasoning was that USAF pilots could be protected and treated as Prisoners of War versus CIA pilots who would be considered spies. (125) here is the reference in the source (125) Jackson, 116. your cite has a bibliography http://www.rb-29.net/HTML/77ColdWarS...01biblgphy.htm the reference for the Kennedy claim is to Jackson, Robert. High Cold War: Strategic Air Reconnaissance and the Electronic Intelligence War. Somerset: Patrick Stephens Limited, 1998. Not senator Jackson and his "memoirs" Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson died in 1983 What is the source for Robert Jackson's claim ? Vince Dumb, thinking something obvious when it wasn't. Lots of books published after the author dies. I can't find Jackson as anything other than a book for sale. Two more documentation of Air Force, even DIA supervision of the October 14th flight. Otherwise I quit. http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2005/0805U2.asp In late August, Sen. Kenneth B. Keat*ing (R-N.Y.)-whose sources were probably Cuban exiles in Florida-said there was evidence of Soviet "rocket installations" in Cuba and urged Kennedy to act. Others, notably Sen. Homer E. Capehart (R-Ind.), joined in the call for action. Strangely, U-2 flights ceased for more than a month, from Sept. 5 to Oct. 14. One reason was bad weather, but another was anxiety on part of the President's advisors, who worried about the consequences of a U-2 shootdown. To the dismay of the CIA, the Air Force took over the U-2 missions when they resumed. The first flight was by Maj. Richard S. Heyser on Oct. 14. http://www2.mmae.ucf.edu/~rrm/mccoyhistg.htm The first overflight of Cuba by a U-2 occurred on 14 Oct 1962, this is clearly an error when Maj. Steve Heyser left from Edwards AFB, CA and landed at McCoy AFB, FL. It would also, be the first (Defense Intel Agency) DIA-controlled U-2 mission. In six minutes over the target area, Major Heyser took 928 photos. What I find fascinating is the total absence in the literature of any primary documentation for the AF claim. Very worthwhile discussion Vince |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US aviation hero receives RP recognition | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | November 30th 06 01:14 AM |
"Going for the Visual" | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 101 | May 18th 04 05:08 AM |
Face-recognition on UAV's | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 3 | April 15th 04 03:18 PM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |
Qn: Casein Glue recognition | Vassilios Mazis | Soaring | 0 | August 20th 03 10:00 PM |