-Caveat Lector-   <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-

Pentagon public affairs insists it didn’t alter the photo and that it
  published the image on its Defenselink Website just as it was received.
  “This would be as we got the photo from whoever released it,” Terry
  Mitchell of the audiovisual office of Defense Department Public
  Affairs tells Insight.

         ONI released the photo along with a report signed by Rear Adm.
  L.L. Poe, then ONI director. But Poe had headed ONI for only a few
  days and wasn’t involved in the report. Earl Sheck, a civilian, ran ONI
  day-to-day as its executive director at the time, and supervised the
  internal report. Reached at his Pentagon office, after his recent
  transfer from ONI, Sheck does not deny the discrepancy between
  frame 16 and the Pentagon’s frame 85. He tells Insight that he
  wouldn’t comment without coordination with Pentagon public affairs.
  He referred Insight back to Mitchell. Mitchell did not return a follow-up
  call.

         ONI already has been found guilty of wrongdoing. The Navy IG
  found in August 1999 that ONI illegally retaliated against Daly for
  having made protected communications to Congress, stating that the
  insertion of derogatory information in his personnel file was “an
  unfavorable personnel action taken by ONI and constituted reprisal.” In
  the IG report, Sheck called Daly “overly paranoid.” The IG instructed
  that the derogatory information be removed from Daly’s file and that a
  special review board consider him for promotion. After having passed
  him over twice, the Navy decided to promote Daly last September.

         ONI appears to be the source of confusing and inaccurate
  Pentagon information on the Kapitan Man issue. Some believe that
  ONI officials supervising the probe did not want to make a conclusive
  finding that would upset White House policy of exculpating Moscow.
  Daly testified before a congressional panel that “ONI’s single analyst
  with a background in lasers reported to his Air Force counterpart that
  he had been instructed to stay out of the investigation and attempted to
  unduly influence her not to publish a report on the incident.” ONI did
  not even interview Tabor, the imagery analyst at Esquimalt, or Barnes,
  the helicopter pilot, for its report. Daly testified, “On two separate
  occasions and in front of witnesses, two individuals from ONI
  knowledgeable about the investigation admitted to being influenced by
  senior officials within the organization and to limit the extent of the
  investigation.”

         When ONI completed its investigation, it sent the report to the
  Pentagon under Poe’s signature, along with the altered photograph. On
  June 26, 1997, Pentagon spokesman Bacon released the photo along
  with a summary of the ONI report, a news release and a set of
  questions and answers about the incident. The briefing led the public to
  conclude that Daly and Barnes probably were lased, but not by Kapitan
  Man; that the laser that wounded them probably was an innocent range
  finder, not a weapon or espionage device; that Kapitan Man was not a
  spy ship; that the Canadian-U.S. helicopter crew did not single out
  Kapitan Man for special surveillance, so the Russian vessel was not
  even under suspicion; that the administration did not limit the length or
  scope of the ship inspection; and that no one on the ship had anything to
  hide.

         The briefing also led to the conclusion that no evidence existed
  that Kapitan Man had been modified in a way that would accommodate
  a laser, or even suggesting a laser had been aboard; that the red light
  Daly photographed was definitely not a laser beam but an innocent
  running light; that not a shred of evidence exists that the laser could
  have been fired from the ship; and that the eye injuries of Daly and
  Barnes were not permanent and would heal quickly.

         All those conclusions are false.

         The Pentagon and the Clinton administration clearly were
  convinced that the Russian ship fired the laser. The Defense
  Department pushed for a complete search of the ship, and the State
  Department filed a diplomatic protest with Moscow. The evolution of
  assessments of the photo — from definitely being a laser beam to
  differences of opinion over the image to a 100 percent conclusion that
  the red spot was not a laser beam — and the production of a doctored
  photograph to reinforce that new conclusion indicates a political
  motivation to mislead, and not an objective intelligence assessment.

         The Pentagon even tried to cast doubt on whether Daly and
  Barnes were lased at all, ultimately concluding that the laser burns
  might have been caused by an innocent device such as a laser range
  finder. In reality, no one in the U.S. military seems to know what type
  of laser wounded Daly and Barnes. Burns caused by laser range
  finders, Pentagon spokesman Bacon stated at the time, would heal
  within a matter of months. Daly and Barnes both tell Insight — and
  reports from the U.S. military laser eye-injury experts at Brooks Air
  Force Base confirm — that their conditions are worsening after nearly
  three years.

         Bacon carefully chose his words when he implied that Kapitan
  Man was not a spy ship. “We have no direct evidence that the Russian
  merchant vessel Kapitan Man was on an intelligence-gathering mission
  at the time of the incident of 4 April 1997,” he said. In fact, the
  Pentagon long had suspected the vessel and others of the Far Eastern
  Shipping Co., or FESCO, as being spy ships. Three weeks before the
  incident, then ONI chief Michael R. Cramer had been briefed about the
  problem of FESCO merchant ships and their threats to the U.S. Navy.
  A top-secret Defense Department report written two days after the
  lasing said Kapitan Man “is suspected of having submarine-detection
  equipment on board.” A secret Canadian military document termed
  Kapitan Man a “high-interest” vessel, a euphemism for spy ship.
  Another, dated three days after the lasing, called Kapitan Man “a
  suspected SSN/SSBN surveillance vessel” — a spy ship deployed
  against U.S. attack submarines and ballistic-missile submarines. U.S.
  searches of Kapitan Man in 1993 and 1994 uncovered expendable
  bathythermographs used for antisubmarine warfare, and sonobuoys to
  pick up the sounds of ships and submarines at sea.

         The Canadian helicopter on that fateful day, according to Bacon,
  was on “routine maritime patrol” at the time of the incident and did not
  single out Kapitan Man for surveillance. Insight has obtained
  declassified Canadian military documents indicating that this is untrue.
  According to the documents, U.S. and Canadian forces had been
  watching Kapitan Man for days as it “loitered” 10 miles off Vancouver
  Island March 29-30, 1997, along with a sister ship, the Anatoly
  Kolesnichenko. On April 1, Rear Adm. Russell Moore, commander of
  Canada’s Maritime Forces Pacific, ordered P-3 Aurora surveillance
  planes to follow Kapitan Man as it steamed off the coast of Vancouver
  and directed that the Barnes-Daly helicopter photograph the vessel at
  close range once it sailed into the Straits of Juan de Fuca.

         In a scripted Q&A, the Pentagon asks, “Is it true that the State
  Department restricted the search of the ship to public areas?”
  answering, “No, this is not true. ...” Secret U.S. documents published
  by Times reporter Bill Gertz in his book, Betrayal, and secret Canadian
  documents obtained by Insight, agree that the Clinton administration did
  indeed try to limit the ability of investigators to search the ship.
  Ambassador Collins, the documents show, basically gave the Russians
  control of the probe by giving them 24 hours’ notice of the search, and
  by limiting the search of the 570-foot ship to two hours instead of two
  days. Collins also limited the search to the “public areas” of the vessel.
  The documents support Daly’s testimony that two ONI officials
  admitted to being pressured to limit the scope of the probe.

         Bacon also claimed that the Russian crew had nothing to hide,
  saying the searchers “were granted access to every part of the ship to
  which they requested access with one exception” — a locked library
  room. He dismissed concerns that a laser could have been hidden in
  that compartment.

         A Defense Department news release stated that the search
  “discovered no sign of any recent modifications to the ship that might
  have indicated, for example, the removal of a laser from the area below
  the port bridge where the red light had been imaged.” Again, critics
  say, this was a deceptively worded statement. The boarding team
  indeed discovered such modifications and photographed one on the
  starboard side of the bridge. The suspect port running light, just below
  the windows of the bridge, can be accessed from the inside to change
  the bulb. U.S. Navy inspectors, according to a source close to the
  probe, removed the access panel of the green starboard light and made
  a remarkable discovery: The light assembly had been modified with a
  hinged plate and a quick-release wing bolt that allowed the entire
  fixture to be removed in seconds and replaced on a homemade bracket
  with something else. A U.S. Navy photographer took close-up pictures
  of this assembly — but only on the starboard side of the ship. Navy
  sources close to the probe say the inspectors did not open the access
  panel on the port side that was the subject of the controversy, but they
  offered no explanation.

         Earlier, Navy Intelligence had taken an aerial photo of a sister ship
  of Kapitan Man, the Anadyr, with a strange device protruding from the
  port side running light. The photo is blurry and inconclusive, but a U.S.
  Navy analyst tells Insight that the shape, size and dimensions are
  consistent with a Netherlands-manufactured laser device.

         No one seems to know what type of laser might have been
  involved. One theory is that the laser could be installed in the
  running-light assembly from inside the bridge and operated from the
  window with a joystick. In frame 16, a man can be seen on the bridge
  in the window over the suspected laser flash, but it is unclear what he
  is doing. In frame 85, the windows are darkened, obscuring the human
  figure.

         The only close-up shot the boarding party took of the red port
  running light on Kapitan Man was taken from outside the ship at an
  indirect angle. But even that shot shows shiny scratches on the rusty
  steel of the outer light housing, indicating that something had been
  removed very recently. The Pentagon never officially released that
  photo, even though spokesman Bacon told reporters that there was “no
  sign that anything had been attached and removed. … There was
  actually a layer of dirt or grime on parts of the ship that would have
  made it pretty easy to see if there had been a tripod set up there or if
  people had been running around moving equipment on the deck of the
  ship, and there was no indication that they had been.”

         It is unlikely the ONI would have informed Bacon; its report, in
  contradiction of the photographic evidence, states that “there was no
  indication of abnormal activity on the ship.”

         While the U.S. and Canadian governments denied that a laser
  incident involving Kapitan Man had occurred, both took emergency
  action. They immediately terminated all helicopter surveillance patrols
  over the Strait of Juan de Fuca and canceled the program. Based on
  U.S. Navy imagery analysis, Canada scrambled to find protective
  equipment for its pilots and air crews against “laser threats,” according
  to a declassified memorandum. The incident, according to Ottawa,
  showed the high vulnerability of laser threats and a “strong possibility”
  that a “legitimate threat exists even in our own backyard.”

         The Air Force and Navy showed equal concern, acquiring
  protective equipment for their personnel. After an Air Force
  intelligence expert on lasers from Wright Patterson Air Force Base
  briefed the Air Force chief of staff on the lasing, she was sent on a
  two-year global tour to brief pilots and special-operations crews on the
  dangers of laser weapons. But ONI retaliated against Daly, according
  to the Navy Inspector General, calling him a security risk and inserting
  negative information in his file.

         There are other anomalies as well. The section of the ONI report
  released to the press concluded that the red dot in the photo “has been
  conclusively established to be the port running light.” Only when
  doctored to remove the white and yellow pixels could the photograph
  lead analysts to arrive at such a definitive conclusion.

         Another section of the ONI report, a section which was not
  officially released to the public but which Insight has secured, tells a
  different story: “it cannot be conclusively ruled out” that the red dot is a
  laser beam. That suppressed finding, like the suppressed original photo,
  contradicts the administration’s absolutist line. But it still doesn’t
  answer the central question: Who in the Department of Defense is
  responsible for faking a photograph and causing the Pentagon
  public-affairs office to mislead the American people about the lasing of
  a U.S. Navy officer, and why?


=================================================================
             Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT

  FROM THE DESK OF:                    <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
                      *Mike Spitzer*     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
                         ~~~~~~~~          <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
       Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to