Investigation into the Downing of an Iranian Airliner by the U.S.S. “Vincennes”

Query: “49 ADT”?  “Mode II”?  “0647”?

DoD Report, ¶ 2(k), p.52 (1988: p.35) (July 28 1988).

_______________

Query: “20 miles”?

That’s about 0652:45 Z.

Not here, at 0647:37 Zulu, at 47 n.miles.

But a full five minutes later, instead.

After “someone reported that the approaching aircraft was an F-14”.

After that someone announced his intention to attack.

And who was that someone?

Who said out loud it was an F-14?

And said out loud he intended to attack?

For everyone in the CIC to hear?

Before 49 ADT convinced himself he momentarily saw what he didn’t see (military mode-2). Together with what he did see (civilian mode-3).

That someone was Scott Lustig (Lieutenant Commander) “(GW)”.

Talking out loud on the satellite radio, to his captain’s boss, at Bahrain, Anthony A. Less (Rear Admiral), Commander of the Joint Task Force Middle East.

Scott Lustig was seated at position “GW” (labeled “EC” on the August 19 plan), directly at the left hand of Captain Rogers (CO).

Scott Lustig was in charge of air defense.

And the boss of 49 ADT, the operator of the warship’s rotating air search radar (AN/SPS-49(V)) and, in addition, the warship’s MAD radio-talker too, seated at position “ADT” (labeled “ARC” on the August 19 plan), 3-4 seats away from Scott Lustig.

Willfully, misplacing this assertion, on the timeline, is prima facie criminal lie.

  –CJHjr

Query: “IDS”?  “Mode II”?  “0650”? “32 nm”?

DoD Report, ¶ (4)(b), p.47 (1988: p.32) (July 28 1988).

_______________

Query: “Reported”?

Don’t you mean, “later recollected”?

And, “later recollected he reported”?  –CJHjr

Senate Hearing, p.30 (below)

Query: “9000 feet”?

That’s at 0652 Zulu.

When IR655 was at 9000 feet.

Not here, during 0650 Zulu, at range 32 n.miles.

When IR655 was at 6500 feet.

But nearly two full minutes later, instead.

After Scott Lustig, the IDS’s boss, publicly proclaimed (during 0650 Zulu, range 32 n.miles) the target was an F-14.

An authority figure.

Talking on the radio to Bahrain.

Making an official report.

To another authority figure.

Before the IDS convinced himself he momentarily saw what he didn’t see (military mode-2). In addition to what he did see (civilian mode-3).

Scott Lustig was the boss of the IDS, seated at position “IDS,” 3-4 seats away from Scott Lustig.

Note:  The aircraft was at 6160 feet at range 34 n.miles. At 7000 feet at range 29 n.miles. Extrapolating, IR655 was at 6500 feet at range 32 n.miles, when Scott Lustig spoke that range to Anthony Less, during the minute 0650 Zulu. The aircraft was at 9200 feet 10 n.miles later, at range 22 n.miles, some seconds after 0652:00 Zulu.

When Scott Lustig spoke 32 n.miles, IR655 was then climbing at 316 knots. At that speed it would take nearly 2 full minutes (1 minute, 54 seconds) to travel those 10 n.miles.

To reach the point fixed in the IDS’s memory, as he later stated in his recollection.

Misplaced here, on the timeline. Two minutes, and 10 n.miles, too soon.

Willfully, misplacing this assertion, on the timeline, is prima facie criminal lie.

  –CJHjr

Query: “Warning”?

DoD Report, ¶ (4)(a), p.47 (1988: p.31) (July 28 1988). {Time}, ICAO Report, pp.16, B-16 (Nov. 7 1988).

_______________

This “warning”:

Hence, these words are not a “warning.”

To assert otherwise is prima facie criminal lie.

Absent the text.

Without the text, this is an assertion of an unassailable fact. With the text, it’s an opinion. Like my own assertion is (that it’s not a “warning”).

By telling Anthony Less he had “warned” the target, Scott Lustig deceived Anthony Less, about a material fact. And, prima facie lied to him. Because Anthony Less was entitled to believe, that the Vincennes radio-talker, seated next to Scott Lustig, obeyed his talking script. Which he did not do.

Senior U.S. Military Officers also asserted, at this hearing, that the Vincennes “warned” the target. And, they concealed the text of this “warning,” from their testimony, at this hearing.

The text was present at this hearing, in the hands of the Senators, the DoD report of the investigation. And, it was available to the public, from the DoD Press Office.

The Senators omitted it from their printed hearing.

99.9999% of the public watching and listening to this hearing, on TV and radio, and reading about it later in print, did not have a copy of the DoD Report. Nor, I imagine, did 95% of the journalists and editors, of print, TV, and radio news. And, apart from those willfully colluding in the criminal lie to Congress (maybe most of them), I suppose that most, or all, of the Senators were not masters of this detail.

To this vast bulk, of the worldwide population, this assertion was an unassailable fact, and hence a lie — that a “warning” had been “issued” to Iran Air flight 655 and the pilot “ignored” the “warning.”

And so we have a situation — common in political life — where U.S. Government officials lie direct to the public, doing what’s necessary, in secret from the public, to ensure they cannot be successfully prosecuted for their lie (as they suppose).

And the very best forum, to propagate lies to the public, is a U.S. Congressional hearing. This, because the public has a high expectation, that what is said at such a hearing will be the truth. Because lying, to a Congressional hearing, is a crime, no less than in a courtroom.

The format, of the political institution of a Congressional hearing, is not suited to double duty. To inquiring into the facts of a matter and — at the same time — inquiring into the separate matter, whether they are being lied to.

And you only have to look at this very webpage, and its related webpages, to see how an inquiry into lying can overwhelm an inquiry into the events being lied about. It’s an intense, dense, effort, to penetrate a criminal conspiracy of criminal deceit.

And that’s not the mission-statement of the United States Congress.

Members of Congress normally operate under a 5-minute rule for questions. They can easily be buried in documents they can’t possibly read and absorb, in the pace of their daily duties. They can easily be tricked and deceived with lies.

And, being a political institution, and not a judicial institution, Congressional committee members are not all devoted to the same goal. They have political agendas. And they keep secrets from each other.

Indeed, I imagine it’s common, that some members of a committee, and especially their staffs, are themselves periodic members of prima facie criminal conspiracies, in combination with Executive Branch officials, to lie to their very own committees.

And I believe we are witnessing that in this very hearing.

And especially so with military and intelligence officers, and their Congressional allies, who routinely conceal their criminal lies behind the veil of classified, secret, information. Which the public cannot penetrate.

And, if we are dealing with lies on orders, then we are also dealing with U.S. prosecutors who will not prosecute the liars.

Apart from the criminal liars amongst them, Congressional committees operate on faith, and so too the news journalists, reporting their activities:

_______________

Damon J. Keith (Circuit Judge), Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681, 711 (6th Cir., Aug. 26 2002) {copy, 255kb.pdf}

Complaining about being lied to, in a secret briefing, by CIA and DIA Officers. Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the National Security of the United States (U.S. Congress 108-2, Senate Hearing S.Hrg. 108-863, March 9 2004, Armed Services Committee) {SuDoc: Y 4.AR 5/3:S.HRG.108-863, OCLC: 62239981, LCCN: 2006360652, GPOCat, LL: paper, microfiche, DL, WorldCat}. John Warner (Chairman), Carl Levin (Ranking Minority Member) {13kb.html, copy}. Witnesses: George J. Tenet (Director of Central Intelligence) {82kb.html, 80kb.pdf, copy}, Lowell E. Jacoby (Director, Defense Intelligence Agency) {139kb.pdf, copy}. C-Span video {3:02:00}. Transcripts {Lexis}: FDCH transcript, FNS transcript {copies: 215kb.html, 151kb.pdf}. Articles: Washington Post {pf}, New York Times, Los Angeles Times.

_______________

But even with disclosure of the text of the supposed “warning,” asserting a dishonest opinion is a prima facie criminal lie.

Pretending to believe what you don’t really believe.

And an actual criminal lie, if that’s what the jury believes, beyond reasonable doubt, in light of all the evidence at the trial.

Furthermore:

Query: “Ignored”?

These words are not capable of being “ignored.”

Because they seek no response from the aircraft — no reply, no action — of any kind.

And to assert otherwise is prima facie criminal lie.

Not least, because the Vincennes radio-talker negligently failed to ask the pilot to identify himself and state his intentions.

A negligent violation of the U.S. NOTAM:

_______________

NOTAM FAA FDC 052/87 (Sept. 8 1987).  
ICAO Report, p. F-4 (Nov. 7 1988).

_______________

And, a negligent violation of the radio-talker’s talking script (below).

Both documents concealed, by senior U.S. Military Officers. From the text of their DoD Report. Both the public version. And the classified version. And from their testimony to Congress.

Material facts, buried, without relevant comment, in their secret classified exhibits.

Which no Congressional staff member is authorized to look at. Which no member of the Congressional committee is authorized to look at, except alone, inside a distant, high security, guarded, locked, room. Which no member of Congress, if s/he does look at it, is authorized to copy, or make notes of, or disclose, or mention. And — for that reason — which few Members will look at:

Charles E. Schumer (U.S. Senator), talking about the secret CIA National Security Estimate on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. Dana Priest, “Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Criticized” {pf} (Washington Post, April 27 2004).

Asserting, that concealed text is a “warning” and, at the same time, willfully concealing documents — which are not eligible for a “secret” classification, or any other level of classification — which prove that text is not a “warning” and that it violated the legal duty of the United States of America—

And failing to call attention to this contrary information—

This, is a prima facie criminal lie.

Concealing the negligence of the Vincennes radio-talker.

And concealing the negligence of senior U.S. Military Officers who issued a faulty talking script to their warship radio-talkers (next).

Furthermore:

Query: “Issued to”?

The Vincennes radio-talker recklessly failed to speak the aircraft’s unique transponder (IFF) squawk code (a 4-digit number) — staring the radio-talker in his face from his CRO computer display — so that the pilot could know whom the radio-talker was talking about.

Hence, these words were not “issued to” Iran Air Flight 655.

And to assert otherwise is prima facie criminal lie.

The Vincennes radio-talker was an “innocent agent” of his senior U.S. Military Officers who recklessly failed to provide him with a proper talking script, requiring him to speak that squawk code. “Reckless,” because they could foresee the deadly consequences of their negligence.

An excellent criminal motive to conceal their faulty talking script from the text of their report. And from their testimony.

A prima facie criminal lie by material omission.

And another excellent criminal motive is this:

Their own talking script itself expressly distinguishes a “request” from a “warning.” The Vincennes hello message — which violated this talking script — does not even qualify as a mere “request,” and certainly not a “warning.”

And so, they couldn’t pretend this Vincennes hello message was a “warning,” if they disclosed their talking script, which expressly says it’s not a “warning”.

And so they decided to simply lie, and conceal this material document from the text of their report, buried as a secret exhibit, without comment:

_______________

United States Navy Procedure for Communicating with Unidentified Aircraft

United States Navy ships are required to warn unknown or potentially hostile aircraft that are approaching a Navy ship.

Prior to this warning, a request for information is transmitted. The request is:

If the unknown aircraft fails to respond and continues to approach the naval ship or the aircraft movements are not understood, the following warning is given:

Requests for information and warnings are made on both the Military Air Distress frequency (243.0 mHz) and the international Air Distress frequency (121.5 mHz).

United States Navy ship captains realize that not all commercial aircraft transmit their proper IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) code or remain in the proper airways and will take this into account when they encounter such an aircraft.

ICAO Report, Appendix F.

_______________

No pilot, in the history of the world, I don’t suppose, has ever heard a radio-talker speak geographical coordinates to identify an aircraft.

Certainly not, when it’s squawking its unique transponder ID number.

I’m guessing, but I don’t suppose the pilot switched on and programmed his inertial navigation system, for a 28 minute trip, he had flown many times, during the previous two years.

He wasn’t flying a “great circle” route.

Furthermore:

Query: Simultaneous broadcast?

This hello message was likely broadcast (if  it was broadcast) while the pilot was busy talking to his airport office.

A material fact omitted by U.S. Military Officers. From their DoD Report. Both the public version. And the classified version. And from their classified exhibits. And from their classified enclosures. And from their testimony to Congress.

If they had time-stamped recordings and transcripts of the pilot’s conversations — as they surely did — and from many sources — then they maliciously concealed this material information from their report and testimony.

A prima facie criminal lie by material omission.

And finally:

Query: A “radio” warning?

Senior U.S. Military Officers concealed from their report, and from Congress, that Scott Lustig failed to inform Anthony Less that a different warning had been issued to the target.

And the target did not react.

That was the Sides, locking-on to the target with its fire control radar.

Staring Scott Lustig in his face, on his large screen display (a half bar across the top of the target symbol).

This is diagnostic of a civilian aircraft (which doesn’t have a radar homing and warning receiver, sounding a loud alarm, when locked-on).

And, prima facie negligence by Scott Lustig.

And, hence, by the United States of America.

A prima facie criminal lie by material omission.

  –CJHjr

Query: “Warning”?

The first “warning” wasn’t a “warning.”

And so, there’s nothing “continuous” about this, his second try.

Was this a “warning”?

This, the second “warning,” the Vincennes IAD talker spoke {0651:09–0651:43 Zulu} while the pilot was busy talking, to Air Traffic Control (Tehran Area Control Center) {0650:54–0651:30 Zulu}.

And, while the Sides IAD talker was apparently busy talking too, broadcasting his own warning, at the same time, on the same frequency — a jabble of babble no listener could possibly understand.

Hence, for both reasons, it was not a “warning” to the pilot.

And anybody who knew these facts, and claimed it was a “warning,” was a liar. And not just any old liar, but a prima facie criminal liar. Twice over. Lying in an official U.S. Government report. And lying to Congress.

And so too all those members of the criminal conspiracy to lie. And all those other principal liars. Who knowingly authorized and assisted the liars. Among them, any United States Senators, at this very hearing, and committee staff members, who knew the truth and kept quiet, while these witnesses lied.

These material facts were omitted by senior U.S. Military Officers. From their DoD Report. Both their public version. And their secret classified version. And from their secret classified exhibits. And from their secret classified enclosures. And from their testimony to Congress.

If they had time-stamped recordings and transcripts of the pilot’s conversations — as they surely did — and from many sources — then they maliciously concealed this material information from their report and testimony. They certainly had plenty of recordings of the simultaneous broadcast jumble by the Vincennes and Sides, which they maliciously concealed.

Two prima facie criminal lies, by material omission.

Concealing the negligence of senior U.S. Military Officers:

“Reckless,” because they could foresee the deadly consequences of their negligent failure to do their duty.

An excellent criminal motive, for senior U.S. Military Officers, to unite, in a criminal conspiracy, to lie in an official U.S. Government report, and to lie to Congress.

  –CJHjr

Query: “Continuously”?

So far, we haven’t had a single warning.

The first “warning” wasn’t a “warning.”

The second “warning” wasn’t a “warning.”

And so, there’s nothing “continuous” about this, his third, and final, try.

Was this a “warning”?

DoD Report, ¶ (6)(h), p.50 (July 28 1988), public version: p.35. {Time}, from ICAO Report, p.16 ¶ 2.10.8, p.B-16 (Nov. 7 1988).

Query: “Issued ... to TN 4131”?

Once again, for the third time, this “warning” was not “issued to” IR655. Because he did not speak the pilot’s unique transponder squawk code. Staring the Vincennes talker in the face on his CRO. The very same CRO which also displayed course, speed, altitude, and bearing, which he did speak.

Query: “Warning”?

Once again, for the third time, the Vincennes talker violated the U.S. NOTAM, and failed yet again to ask the pilot to identify himself and state his intentions.

But that’s not what many different U.S. Government officials repeatedly pretended:

_______________

Richard S. Williamson (Assistant Secretary of State, International Organization Affairs, 1988-1989), formal, prepared, written, 15-page statement, spoken in person, by this lawyer, to the U.N. ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, July 13 1988 (AP880714-0103).

When later confronted, about another lie in his statement (that the Vincennes was in international waters), Williamson claimed he was an innocent liar, that he himself was lied to, by senior U.S. Military Officers, the actual, principal, liars.

_______________

Once again, the Vincennes talker violated his talking script, and did not issue instructions to the pilot.

And what of the Sides talker? Was he too, once again, also broadcasting a warning? Another Sides warning unaccounted for? Once again talking on top of the Vincennes talker? More babble?

Senior U.S. Military Officers had it in their power to prove the Sides talker wasn’t. And they didn’t.

They lied about the first warning.

They lied about the second warning.

And now we’re supposed to believe they didn’t lie about the third warning too? The final Vincennes warning.

If they’re not lying about the third warning too, they have it in their power to prove it, with actual VHF recordngs.

It’s obvious, from their decision to conceal their secret proof, what their secret proof proves.

  –CJHjr

Query: “Procedural error”?

The decision by William C. Rogers III (Captain, Commanding Officer, USS Vincennes), knowingly and willfully, with specific intent, to violate Navy Regulations, and falsely certify an officer as qualified to stand Watch, whom Rogers knew to be untrained and unqualified for that Watch (Anti-Air Warfare Controller), who had the duty, but not the knowhow, to lock-on with the fire control radar, as an aid to identifying the target, required by the Rules of Engagement —

This is a mere “procedural error”?

Of no consequence?

Which did not contribute to the ambush?

And had no bearing on the legal responsibility of the United States of America to the Islamic Republic of Iran?

  –CJHjr