Time: Wed Apr 16 17:50:29 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA05700;
	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:49:02 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA01476;
	Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:48:51 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:45:30 -0700
To: snetnews@world.std.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: PENTAGON SPOKESMAN'S REGULAR BRIEFING APRIL 15 (fwd)

What I want to know is this:

If a student pilot is up on a training mission
with his instructor, and with a second student,
in three different and identical planes, mind you,
how was is possible for the instructor to lose
visual contact with one student, forever?  I thought
instructors had a responsibility to stay near
their students, like a mother hen broods over
her chicks.  What am I missing here?  the latest
Air Force training manual?  If the instructor 
loses visual contact with his student, I should
think he would do everything possible to scramble
at that moment, and by "scramble," I mean to enable
every piece of ground- and air-based reconnaissance
to re-locate the student, who couldn't be more than
1 to 2 miles away after visual contact was lost.

And, what happened to his radio and instrument contact 
with both students?  Is the Air Force trying to make us 
believe that both the instructor AND the second student
both lost total contact with the first student?

Just what kinds of training are we giving to
Top Guns these days?  It can't be very good,
if they cannot maintain a formation for more than
the blink of an eye, without losing sight of each
other.  It sounds to me as if they should be enlisting
the talents of Tom Cruise at the moment, no matter
what the cost.

I would, then, focus my investigation on the
first few moments after visual contact was lost,
and reconstruct the situation from that point forward.
Of course, this is the very kind of information which
the USAF may not want us to know.  "Why?" is the 
real question.   Do they have flight recorders on
these training missions, for example, or is that
another TOP SECRET national security issue?  

I am sorry for the "attitude" I am expressing here, 
but the cost of the search and rescue is now mounting up 
to be  a lot more than the value of the plane.  The story
I am getting is that civilian air traffic controllers
expect to see this A-10 magically "re-surface," on or
about the federal courthouse in Denver, during the
OKC bombing trial.  Without much to go on, I do tend
to believe this story more than any other.  What a 
great way this is to crush morale within the USAF.
I mean, I ran into an Army GI in a restaurant recently,
and her first comment was, "It's not us.  We're Army.
We're laughing at them for losing a plane."

Meanwhile, the Red Chinese are pouring arms and
ammunition into this country in huge volumes, and
our USAF lost a plane.

Let's all go chase wild goose, shall we?

"Look!  A wild goose!!  Over THERE!!!"

Need I say any more?

/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com





At 10:58 PM 4/16/97 GMT, you wrote:
>
>->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>
>
>On 16 Apr 1997 09:00:26 -0700, in zipnews.gov.news.summary.48hours USIA
>wrote:
>
>*97041507.TXT 
>
>TRANSCRIPT:  PENTAGON SPOKESMAN'S REGULAR BRIEFING APRIL 15
>
>(Zaire, Saudi Arabia, missing military aircraft, B-1, sex harassment
>trial, North Korea, Panama) (2330)
>
>Pentagon Deputy Spokesman Mike Doubleday briefed April 15.
>
>Following is the Pentagon transcript:
>
>(begin transcript)
>
>DoD News Briefing
>Captain Mike Doubleday, USN, DASD(PA)
>Tuesday, April 15, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
>
>DOUBLEDAY:  Let me start with a few introductions.
>
>First of all, I'd like to welcome ten Russian journalists to the
>briefing. These are editors in chief or management executives of
>newspapers throughout the Russian Federation, and they are here
>looking at the business of journalism during a three-week trip around
>the United States.
>
>We also have 17 journalism students from The American University
>School of Communication. They're here to learn about the coverage
>facilities and the process that results in our news briefing. They're
>led by Assistant Professor Sean Kelly, himself a former Pentagon
>correspondent. The students are from colleges and universities around
>the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, and they're all
>spending a semester at American University learning how journalism is
>practiced in Washington, D.C. I hope they have an opportunity to talk
>to some of the journalists who are here, also.
>
>I would also like to welcome Joy Kurtz and her husband Scott. Neither
>Scott nor Joy is a stranger to these kinds of proceedings. Joy is a
>producer for WFTV an ABC affiliate in Orlando, Florida; and Scott is a
>cameraman there.
>
>On the announcement side, Dr. Bernard Rostker, who is the Special
>Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, will go on a nine city town hall
>tour starting on Sunday in Cleveland, Ohio. This is being done to
>address the concerns of Gulf War veterans across the country. The tour
>is sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion.
>These are informational forums that are going to be held from 7 p.m.
>to 9:30 p.m. in each one of the cities, local time. There is a Blue
>Top which has been distributed which has all the dates and locations
>which you can refer to if you're interested in following up on that.
>
>Those of you who are here, and anybody who is in the building is
>welcome to attend a teleconference this afternoon in the video
>teleconference facility in the Army Operations Center. This will be at
>3:30. Major General James Hill of the U.S. Army Forces Command and
>Major General John Costello, who is the Commanding General of Fort
>Bliss, are going to provide a briefing and answer questions on
>Exercise Roving Sands '97 which kicks off tomorrow. This is one of the
>largest exercises we conduct in the United States. It involves more
>than 20,000 servicemembers from all branches of the armed forces, and
>three allied nations. They use facilities in military installations
>and training ranges throughout Texas and (New) Mexico for that
>exercise. For those of you who are going to attend the briefing, meet
>in Room 2E641 at 3:15 and the Army will provide an escort to see that
>you get to the videoteleconference facility.
>
>With that, I'd be happy to try and answer some of your questions.
>
>QUESTION: Mike, now that the Marines have taken over in Brazzaville,
>have there been any changes? Has the (USS) Nassau moved any closer?
>Could you fill us in on that?
>
>ANSWER: There are no changes other than the one you mentioned, and let
>me just go through that a little bit.
>
>Marine Corps Brigadier General Guy Vander Linden took over command of
>the Joint Task Force which is located at Brazzaville in Congo. He took
>control of the operation from the Army which had been operating there
>since we deployed to the region. We have, as you are aware, Charlie
>and others, we have a special Marine air/ground task force which is
>on-scene and embarked in USS Nassau operating off the coast of Zaire.
>The actual location of the ship is about the same as it's been. They
>are still in a very watchful and prepared mode, ready to help out if
>required, but at this point there has been no request for any kind of
>evacuations that would involve the Marines.
>
>We have at this point slightly over 200 military personnel in
>Brazzaville. We have just under 60 who are located in Libreville.
>We've got a couple of people located in Kinshasha for the purpose of
>communications and support from that side. But right now they're just
>watching and waiting.
>
>Q: When is the swap-out with the (USS) Kearsarge supposed to take
>place?
>
>A: I think that you probably have seen the release that was put out.
>Kearsarge is scheduled to depart from Norfolk, Virginia today to
>relieve Nassau. That will be some time later this month. Embarked in
>Kearsarge is the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit; on board USS Nassau
>is the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit.
>
>Q: Can you tell us when the Secretary will receive the Record report
>from the Air Force and when we might expect that the Secretary will
>make some sort of decision about the report's recommendation that no
>one be published for the lapse of security in Saudi Arabia?
>
>A: The time frame on this is that the actual report on the
>investigation into the bombing at Khobar Towers was transmitted to the
>Office of the Secretary yesterday. Now the report itself is quite
>extensive -- lots of supporting documents, footnotes, that sort of
>thing. I don't have any time line that I can share with you at this
>point on how long a review will take place before it actually moves to
>the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, but it has been formally
>transferred to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
>
>Q: Last time it was formally transferred to the Office of the
>Secretary of Defense, it was... We were told by a briefer at this
>podium that it was returned and told it needed more work. Does the
>Office of the Secretary of Defense now consider the report complete?
>
>A: The office has not yet had an opportunity to review this very
>extensive report, and until that occurs, I can't tell you what the
>outcome will be.
>
>Q: Can we turn briefly to the search for the missing A-10 in Colorado?
>At their briefing out there this morning they said that a team had
>been assembled to take a 'fresh look' at the evidence, I gather all
>the way across the board. Can you tell us what the fresh look team is
>doing and why that is necessary if you have a good team on it?
>
>A: I actually have no further information for you on that. The search
>is being conducted and coordinated by the Air Force from Colorado.
>Although I've seen those reports, I don't have any further insights
>into any kind of a fresh approach.
>
>Q: Do you have any kind of an estimate on costs so far for the search
>at this point?
>
>A: No, I don't. I know there are several different agencies involved
>in the search. But as you probably imagine, the cost is not, at this
>juncture, our primary concern. Our primary concern is to try and find
>the pilot and to locate the aircraft, if possible.
>
>Q: Has anybody said that they're going to put an end date to this
>thing, or is there a point when... Are we going to wait until the snow
>melts?
>
>A: There is certainly no end date. I think the search will continue as
>long as there is some hope that we'll find something, as long as
>technology allows us to search in any kind of coordinated way. And how
>long that will be, I can't say.
>
>Q: You say you have no new information. Does that mean that this team
>that is being assembled is not a DoD team, it's an Air Force team?
>
>A: It's an Air Force team. We receive reports from time to time
>through the Air Force on how the search is going. But as I say, I
>don't have any insights in any kind of change in their approach that
>they've made out there.
>
>Q: You say as long as technology allows us to have some hope that
>something may be found. Technology is being fairly roundly defeated by
>the quantity of snow and the ruggedness of the terrain, is it not at
>this point?
>
>A: I think that technology has been applied very effectively in this
>case. If you were here for the briefing that was given last week by
>the Air Force and how they're progressing on this, it was only through
>a very careful analysis and through the interviews that the Air Force
>has had with people who may have seen something, that they constructed
>a fairly tight area where the aircraft may have crashed. As a result
>of that, they've been able to pinpoint the search in a fairly confined
>area. They've certainly used aviation technology in a variety of
>forms, including helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, SR-71s, U-2s.
>They've used photo-intelligence to locate anything that would add to
>their ability to pinpoint the area where the aircraft might be. It is
>true at this point they've not found the aircraft, but as I say, I
>think they want to continue as long as they have anything that would
>indicate to them where they could look productively.
>
>Q: How common is it for the Air Force or any of the services not to be
>able to find a plane that crashed like this?
>
>A: It's very unusual. I think the Air Force can provide you some
>specifics on that, but it is quite unusual for an aircraft to go
>missing more than 24 hours. And in this case, we're about to reach the
>two-week point.
>
>Q: Is the B-2 flying again, and is there any analysis of what
>happened...
>
>A: The B-2 is -- I believe -- is flying again, and it appears that it
>was simply a problem with a single aircraft.
>
>I may have said something earlier, I may have incorrectly identified
>the locations where this exercise is going to take place. It is Texas
>and New Mexico. If anyone misunderstood me, please, I stand corrected.
>
>Q: On the briefing at the Army's Operation Center, the video
>teleconference, is that available for videotape recording?
>
>A:  We'll try and find out while we're here.
>
>Q: On the Aberdeen trial, referring specifically to Elaine Sciolino's
>article in the New York Times witnessing, I believe, testimony
>yesterday and Friday. What is the Department of Defense reaction to
>the appalling -- I believe -- appalling revelations that are coming
>out of this trial?
>
>A: Bill, I think you know that because this is a trial in progress
>we're very restricted in what we can say regarding the judicial
>proceedings that are going on. I think the statements earlier which
>have been made by the various officials of the Department in a very
>generalized sense are a matter of record, and we'd be very happy to
>provide them to you.
>
>Q: Do you think the chain of command broke down at Aberdeen, and
>strict rules of social behavior between the sexes were broken? And
>what is the military doing to keep blackmail, keep this imposed
>silence from happening again on a base where people are being abused?
>
>A: I think as we talked last week, there is an Army review of this
>entire situation that is expected to be presented to the Secretary of
>the Army later this year, sometime this summer, which will address
>many of the problems which have been identified so far. But in
>addition to that, I want to remind you that there are procedures set
>up in every location, every unit, every command that I'm aware of, for
>hotline calls to various officials so that if there are problems that
>can't be worked through the chain of command there is an approach that
>individuals can take to surface these problems.
>
>Certainly the history of the U.S. military is one that depends very
>heavily on the chain of command, and when the chain of command
>operates appropriately, is an extremely effective way of managing
>people and managing problems and solving problems.
>
>Q: Can a trainee/recruit under the control of a sergeant be assured
>that a higher-up in the chain of command will protect them if they
>tell the truth?
>
>A: I think the Army is looking at this whole matter. They have taken
>steps to ensure that a system exists which will, indeed, protect
>recruits, as every branch of the service does.
>
>Q: There's a published report that North Korea was preparing to deploy
>a new class of long range missiles that could reach South Korea and
>Japan. Can you confirm whether that's the case or not? Is that
>something the United States is looking into or concerned about?
>
>A: I certainly am aware of the report, but I'm not in a position to
>discuss intelligence matters. I do want to point out, however, that we
>monitor very closely the developments in ballistic missile programs
>such as this one very closely. We've done that for many years. We'll
>continue to do that kind of monitoring. We're very concerned about the
>development and possible deployment or export of such missiles. I also
>want to point out that there are talks which are scheduled to take
>place next month in New York City regarding North Korean missile-
>related activities.
>
>Q: On Panama, with this officer charged with negligent homicide after
>he allegedly made one of his subordinates go on a run, that he later
>died, apparently, of heat stroke. Do you have anything on that?
>
>A: I don't have any further details. I've of course seen that release
>that was put out by the folks down there in Panama, but I don't have
>details beyond that.
>
>Press:  Thank you.
>
>(end transcript)
>NNNN
>

>
>

========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail