Notes on USS Healy's Deck Log

Section of deck log sent out to me by the National Archives and Records Administration on April 18, 2000, of the USS Healy (DD-672) for June 16-21, 24, 1944.

For comparison, I used other destroyer deck log sections that were also of interest in this general time period of June 16-24, including those of the USS Terry (June 20-21, 24, 1944) the USS C. K. Bronson (June 19, 21, 1944), and the USS Lexington (June 21, 1944). These are the log sections that are immediately available and on hand at this point.

What first becomes obvious to the reader upon comparison is that, alone among the logs, the Healy's is "missing" or "skipping" pages; that is, only even numbers are used for the page numbers. This suggests the formatting is designed to "allow for" some skipped time periods, as if to say that there is an "in-between" page that runs from noon to midnight, juxtaposed between the "recorded" pages (the even-numbered pages) that record beginning at midnight, then ending at noon, at which point the "in-between" and unnumbered odd numbered page kicks in, as to being a section of the log that records the events in question.

If that is the case, there is another reason why this may have been done: the formatters were conscious that the section of the log that is for "20-2400" hours--that is, 8 p.m. to midnight--might be "off" by a few minutes, in that events that occurred after midnight (post-2400 hours) might inadvertently be recorded as occurring on the same day, when, in fact, after midnight should be in the '00-04" section of the subsequent day.

(And see Permission to Date Ahead elsewhere on this Site for more of why and how this is significant.

This would suggest that the only even-numbered pages being the only pages present, would thus done to compensate and "allow" for such errors. That being the case, the date that appears at the top of each page may be the date, not that the log section begins on, but rather the date that the log ends on. That being the case (and again, this is powerfully suggested by the way the log deliberately "skips" using odd-numbered pagination), the page that has "Friday June 16, 1944" should be understood to end, not begin, on that date.

Therefore, by the same measure, events recorded in the Healy's log on "June 20, 1944"'s section, actually are occurring primarily on June 19, 1944--with again, the June 20 date being the date that section ends, rather than the date on which it begins.

Thus, though Houle and his crew are recorded as having water landed on June 20, during the 12-1600 hours section:

"1447: Changed base course to 095 [degrees] T. 1455 Observed San Jacinto TBF crash in water during takeoff bearing 054 [degrees] T. Called away crash detail. Changed course to 54 [degrees] T. Speed to 25 knots. Proceeding to rescue. 1500 all engines back full, rudder hard right, to avoid collision with USS Indianapolis, crossing our bow from starboard to port. 1507 Rescue effected. Following men aboard, uninjured: Lt. R.R. Houle, Mintus, ARM3c, Bynun, AMM3c, all of USS San Jacinto. 1511 Changed course to 030 [degrees] T."

--in reality, this occurred on June 19, 1944, with the log section ending, not beginning, on June 20, 1944.

It is also apparent that the deck log of the USS Healy, like those of all the other ships I've examined (except that of the C. K. Bronson--on which, more in a moment), is typewritten. This means that events, especially combat related events, were probably not recorded in typewritten until some period of time after they actually occurred, thus requiring an element of recollection not necessary in a handwritten account. This, in turn, suggests that the time in which Houle's plane was first sighted in the water, could have been recorded erroneously by the time it was placed into typewritten form, such that the original sight time was recorded as the time that the plane was actually sighted the second time, that is, after the Healy had had to maneuver in order to avoid collision with the Indianapolis.

Combining all of this, we have the following interesting distinct possibilities:

1. Houle crashed on the same date as Bush--June 19, 1944;

2. the actual time that Houle was sighted by the Healy the first time--before its maneuver to avoid collision with the Indianapolis--was earlier than the time later recorded as the first sighting in the typewritten version;

3. that earlier crash and water-landing time for Houle could thus put him much closer to the time of 1309--the time that the USS C. K. Bronson recorded:

"Friendly TBM from USS San Jacinto crashed in water landing alongside."

The delay time between the first sighting of Houle's plane by the Healy and it subsequent delayed pick up of Houle and his crew, is the difference, as recorded, between somewhere between 1447 (when the Healy first changed course to a direction that would allow it to sight Houle's aircraft)1455 (when it records sighting Houle's plane in the water), and about 1507 hours--or about 12 to 20 minutes.

Similarly, if the first sight time was actually earlier than the recorded one, this would suggest a time of approximately 12-20 minutes before between 1447 (when the Healy records first having changed to a course that put in into a line of sight that would allow it to see Houle's plane) and 1455 (the time it records sighting Houle's plane). That would mean the Healy actually first sighted Houle's plane in the water at between 1425 and 1435. Though there is still over an hour's difference between the time the C. K. Bronson first recorded its crashed San Jacinto TBM (1309) and the time the Healy could have actually first sighted Houle's plane (up to 22 minutes before its first typewritten record of it, or, about 1425), there is two interesting things that must be factored into this;

1. the C. K. Bronson's deck log is set up like all the other deck logs (except the Healy's, whose odd numbering system we've described); that is, it is numbered consecutively with no pages "skipped". In addition, the Bronson's log has three formatting characteristics present consistently throughout the log:

A. It is handwritten;

B. each time a page is continued to a following page, the word "cont." appears on either the first of the two pages, or on both pages.

C. page numbers are always present.

The only time this doesn't occur in the C. K. Bronson's log, is on the two pages that refer to the pick up of George Bush's plane from the water. (I have examined several sections of the Bronson's log, from months prior and after this section, and have found no similar formatting variations or errors.)

(Click here for more details on the signicificance of the Bronson's log's seeming oddities.)

The first of those pages ends with the independent clause and possible complete sentence: "1309 friendly TBM from USS San Jacinto crashed in water landing alongside". (Bronson log, page 498, top However, we are not to assume, according to the official version of events as present in this log as it exists today, that this is a complete sentence. Rather, we are given to understand that this text is then continued on the following page, though there is no word "cont.", as occurs in every other instance of data continuation in the C.K. Bronson's deck log. (Bronson long, page 498, bottom. In addition, the text "spills over" in this section, as in no other section of the Bronson's log: that is, the new data is presumed to continue under the same hourly heading as the previous page's data. This also occurs nowhere else in the Bronson's log. In other words, nowhere else does the Bronson allow text to continue under the same hourly heading, onto the next page, and without the word "cont." appearing on either (compare bottom of 498 with top of page "un-numbered" ) of the two pages.

Finally, the Bronson's section that records Bush's name and pick up time, has no number, unlike any other page of the Bronson's log. (See page "un-numbered").

In its listing for June 21, 1944, the Bronson records the transfer of Bush and his crew to the USS Lexington. This suggests that the Bronson did, indeed, pick up Bush and his crew; the question then becomes, when? And under what circumstances?

In other words, the "friendly TBM from USS San Jacinto" that "crashed in water landing alongside", was "alongside" what? The C. K. Bronson? The Healy? Or the USS San Jacinto?

Another thing to factor into this, is that there is a photograph--or rather several photographs--of Houle's plane "alongside" at least three ships, or at least in sight of one and "alongside" two others.

In the photographs, which appear in Robert Stinnett's book (80-7), Houle's plane is first "alongside" the USS San Jacinto, (see photo)then, at a later point, is also alongside the USS Healy (see photo), which ship picked up Houle and his crew. In addition, the photo shows Houle's aircraft in sight of the USS C. K. Bronson. (Note "line of site" notation in my online copy of photo above.)

This suggests some very interesting gray areas about George Bush on June 19, 1944. What time was he actually picked up? Was he even picked up on the 19^th, and if not, when was he picked up? Why is that page so odd? Had it been inserted at a later time? Why is there no "cont." on either of the pages referring to Bush's "crashed TBM alongside"? Why was no effort made to reinsert the hourly section, as is done in every other case when text overlaps in the Bronson's log?

It is also intriguing that the page number is missing on that page, and that there is, in fact, a page which has that page number on it--that is, the page number that "should" be on the page referring to Bush's pick up. (See page 499 of the Bronson's log.)

The page which has the record of the "1309 friendly TBM from USS San Jacinto crashed in water landing alongside...", is page number 498 (which, again, see here). The following page, which has no page number (unlike any other page of the Bronson's log), would, by logic, be read as representing page 499. However, a page 499 appears, two pages later--that is, the page after the unnumbered page referring to Bush's pick up. (See page 499 here.)

Intriguingly, too, that page 499 begins with the hourly section heading "16-20" hours. (Again, see page 499 here.) The section on page 498 that had ended with the reference to the friendly TBM "alongside", ends with the section 12-1600 hours. Thus, the two hourly sections of these two contiguous, numbered pages, could be read as continuous. Thus, just as the page 498 ends at 12-1600 hours, the page 499 begins at 16-2000 hours. That being the case, the inserted, unnumbered page that actually refers to Bush by name, could be in some way bogus!

Looked at in that way, the reference to the crashed friendly TBM from the USS San Jacinto in the Bronson's log on that un-numbered page, could be a reference to the way Houle's plane had been seen "alongside" that same ship--that is, the USS San Jacinto. That being the case, the Bronson's log would be saying something similar to what the Healy's log had said: that Houle's plane was seen to crash shortly after take-off, near the San Jacinto, the carrier from he'd launched.

Intriguingly, too, page 499 has the word "cont." at the top of the page, in keeping with the formatting of the Bronson's log.

Finally, two other ships' logs provide intriguing data here:

Officially, Bush and his crew were transferred, on June 21, 1944, to the USS Lexington And, the C. K. Bronson's log records this as occurring as claimed. However, the log of the Lexington itself says nothing about any such transfer, even though it lists the rendezvous with and refueling of the C. K. Bronson as occurring on that date.

A final ship's log, that of the USS Terry, is also a gray area. On June 24, 1944, that typewritten log records, under its "08-1200 hours" section, an oddly out-of-place time: it is saying (again, under 08-12 hours): "1805 Commenced transfer of aviation personnel by breeches buoy, to USS San Jacinto. 1823 Completed transfer of personnel and commenced maneuvering at various courses and speeds to regain station 6.5152. 1836 Terry resumed station. Formation changed course by simultaneous ships turn to 080 [degrees] T, 081 [degrees] pgc, and 070 [degrees] psc. 0905 Formation changed course by simultaneous ships turn to 120 [degrees] T..."

In other words, in this last supposed official "record" as to Bush's whereabouts during this time frame, THERE IS NO NAME MENTIONED. In addition, THE ENTIRE SECTION THAT COULD EVEN BE REMOTELY INTERPRETED AS REFERRING TO BUSH, IS OUT OF "SYNCH" WITH THE HOURLY SECTION IN WHICH IT IS PLACED, with "1800s" in the "08-1200s" section. As noted with the CK Bronson's log, I've sampled the Terry's log in the months before and after this sequence of events, and have found no similar formatting variances or errors.

While the section reads ok as to the technical jargon used, it is odd that it, alone of the Terry's log sections, has hourly data in the wrong hourly section!

Thus, as with Bush's whereabouts on October 19, 1980, there are gray areas as to Bush's whereabouts on June 19, 1944. This is reinforced by data recorded by Robert Stinnett from eyewitnesses on deck of the C. K. Bronson in reference to the pick up of Bush, to the effect that Bush was "bone dry" when picked up. (Stinnett 73-4).

In addition (assuming the un-numbered page of the C. K. Bronson can be believed or taken seriously), that un-numbered page records that, about ten minutes after Bush and crew had been gotten aboard ship, a Japanese submarine, which is recorded throughout this section of the log as "shadowing" the ship from early that morning, is sighted, less than ten miles away. At that point in time, too, the ship was only a few miles from Guam, which was still held by the Japanese on June 19, 1944 (American forces having not yet landed there).

Reinforcing, or at least further confusing data comes from a later incident, the Bush bailout over Chi Chi Jima on September 2, 1944. According to at least four persons who were fellow veterans and/or fellow squadron members of Bush--as well as the deck log of the USS Finnback, the submarine that picked up Bush (and filmed this pick up)--suggest strongly that Bush's aircraft was not on fire when Bush bailed out and ordered his crew to do so also. (Ellenberg, Al and Alan Wolper. "The Day Bush Bailed Out". New York Post August 12, 1988. 1. Blumenthal, Sidney. "War Story", New Republic October 12, 1992. 17-20. See also, Tarpley, Webster Griffin and Anton Chaitkin. The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush. NY: Executive Intelligence Review, 1991. "Bush in World War II" chapter). See also, Stinnett, Robert. George Bush: His World War II Years DC: Brassey's 1992. 153-170.)

Ironically, Stinnett, in citing Joe Foshee's version of events to bolster Bush's case, may have weakened it: Foshee says he "never saw any fire, only smoke" (160) as Bush's plane was hit. "He kept going down, kinda like we were, then as we got out over the water he leveled off. Then he turned the nose down again trying to keep up flying speed. I assumed the flak hit his engine, but I wasn't sure." "Foshee, who was Doug West's gunner, then related how Bush struggled to keep the bomber in the air by using undulating motions of dipping the nose, leveling off, then dipping again. 'He was just trying to keep the plane up and flying as long as he could trying to give his crew a change to get out.'(Stinnett 161)." If the plane was in no more difficulty than that, a "Ski" might counter, why not level it lower and land on the water? Also, "no fire, only smoke."

Richard Gorman, another crewman supposedly called in to defend Bush, essentially says "Bush's plane was smoking like a two-alarm fire." Yet, again, he failed to see Bush's plane on fire, until after Bush "hit the drink" in his parachute, as the plane got near the water. (Stinnett 161).

Harold Nunnally, alleged by Stinnett to back up Bush's side, actually essentially says (161) he saw nothing, being tied down by other duties at the time.

Turret gunner Charles Bynum seems Stinnett's strongest pro-Bush advocate. Attacking "Ski" personally, he says Mierzejewski was "too far away" to really see what he alleges he saw. At the same time, though, Bynum himself says "I knew he was hit because he leveled off. He came out of his dive, leveled his plane momentarily, then the plane started going down. About this time he bailed out. By trying to keep the plane level he was giving his crew an opportunity to bail out.'" Stinnett notes that Bynum also says that the bombers were flying at above 300 mph and in a dive, so that 'it's kinda hard to bail out of an airplane while in a 300 mph dive.'" (161). Again, though, nowhere does Bynum mention seeing Bush's plane actually on fire.

Milt Moore, another supposed Bush story-backer, refers back to Bynum. 'I pulled up to him [Bush] then he lost power and I went sailing on by him. My gunner (Bynum) was the only one who could see behind us and he called out "Chutes"', Moore said." Yet, in effect, Moore saw no fire on Bush's plane, either.

Admittedly, Stinnett makes a certain case that "Ski" was further away from Bush's plane than he sometimes seemed to assert. (Does this indicate that the "politically true" scenario is the more accurate one, rather than the "absolutely true" one, for the 1980 book ad?) But the basic allegation of "Ski" which is also backed up to an extent by Bush squadron members Lawrence Mueller and Legare Hole, remains.

At the start of his referral Notes to this chapter and the New York Post article of 1988, Stinnett attempts to attack "the media", in this way: "The Post story quoted from VT-51 members Legare Hole and Lawrence Mueller. Neither participated in Strike Baker, September 2, 1944. A version of the Post story was distributed by Associated Press and printed in the New York Times August 13, 1988. The Los Angeles Times originated their own story in report by Lee May on August 13, 1988. The Washington Post had its version by Dan Morgan on August 14, 1988. None of the media contacted surviving eyewitnesses Bynum, Nunnally, Foshee, Gorman or Melton."

Yet, as I just pointed out, even if they had, they would have gotten the above results. Also, Melton, according to Tarpley and Chaitkin, in 1989 was hospitalized with Parkinson's disease and could not be reached for comment.

See also Stinnett's Notes, which seem, in themselves, to be "wrestling" with several possible issues raised about Bush at some points or other by "someone". For example, whether the sub that picked Bush up at Chi Chi Jima was submerged (like the same sub had to do when it had picked up Beckman that same day) or surfaced. The fact some "official" accounts concede the Finnback did not have to submerge when it picked up Bush, as it did when it picked up Beckman near the same island the same day, seems to have been a point in controversy by someone, at some point. Who? Could it have been our mysterious author? See Note 11, page 198: "Bush statement in Looking Forward: 'Finnback submerged.' Not so, says Edwards. The submarine was on the surface at all times. Edwards believes Bush, riding his raft on the crest and fall of the Pacific swell, received impression the sub was submerged." Why the need to justify Bush's false public statement? Had someone previously questioned it? And Note 12, again 198: "Still photos enlarged from Edwards 16 mm motion picture film and published in various media . . . Ensign Beckman's downed location was within the nine-mile range of Chichi Jima's coastal defense guns, so the Finnback remained submerged during the rescue. Beckman clung to the periscope and was towed to the safety of offshore waters and brought aboard when the sub could safely surface. . . "). Why does Stinnett feel the need to "wrestle" with this data, to begin with?

This could all be significant, since a water-landing was required if at all possible when an aircraft was not on fire, in order to maximize the crew's chances of survival. Since Bush had allegedly water-landed his aircraft off Guam on June 19, 1944, it is odd that Bush wouldn't have opted for this under the much more favorable conditions off Chi Chi Jima on September 2, 1944, as well. At that time, no enemy ships or aircraft were in the area, as they had been at the Battle of the Philippines Sea on June 19, 1944. Also, according to two of Bush's fellow squadron members, Mierzejewski and Mueller, part of the Intelligence Officer's report on that incident is now missing from the San Jacinto's deck log.

In addition, there are two other odd things about the San Jacinto's deck log:

1. There is no date on Squadron Commander Don Melvin's report for that raid; (Tarpley and Chaitkin, op cit).

2. The ship's log remained classified longer than virtually any other US WW2 warship--until the 1980s. (Tarpley and Chaitkin, op cit.) This, even though the San Jac didn't participate in any top-secret missions.

A final note is that, as recorded by Joe Hyams in yet another Bush "official" biography, (Hyams, Joe. Flight of the Avenger: George Bush at War NY: Harcourt, 1989. "according to official US Marine records, no raids by US carrier planes against Chi Chi Jima island occurred between July 4, 1944 and February, 1945."

The log of the Finnback, as well as the recollections of two other crewmen on the raid with Bush and a crewman on board the Finnback, strongly suggest Bush's plane was not on fire when he bailed out. (Tarpley and Chaitkin, Unauthorized Biography, "Bush in World War II", on Beckman, as well as above-cited accounts.)

One of the crewmen on board the plane was Jack Delaney, who had also been one of Bush's crewmen on the June 19, 1944 flight. Delaney, as well as Ted White (whose father was a fraternity and business associate of Prescott Bush, George Bush's father) was killed that day as the plane crashed. Bush's parachute was the only one seen to open.

Bush has sometimes appeared to defend his decision by saying that both crewmen appeared to be already dead at the time he chose to bail out. In one version, he says no other crewman attempted to bail out. (Blumenthal, 17-20).

However, in another version, Bush asserts that both were alive and could be heard moving or even groaning in the back, and that he looked behind him and saw one attempting to bail out, after he had given the order to do so. (Blumenthal 17-20).

When did this raid occur? Why is Don Melvin's squadron report undated? Why do official Marine records not record it as occurring on September 2, 1944, when Bush was actually filmed being picked up by the Finnback on that date?

Actually, the Finnback doesn't record the September 2, 1944 pick up of Bush in its log until some time into October, 1944. (Hyams asserts that the Finnback's log for "September 2, 1944, reads::'1156: Picked up Lt. (j.g.) George H.W. Bush, File No. 173464, USNR, pilot of plane T-3 of VT-51, USS San Jacinto, who stated that he failed to see his crew's parachutes and believed that they had jumped when plane was still over Chichi Jima, or they had gone down with the plane. Commenced search of area on chance they had jumped over water (119)." (Note here, too, that Bush was so unsure, in this report, that the plane was seriously damaged that he wondered if his crew might still be alive. This jibes with previous Finnback rescued air crewman Joe Keene's response in a 1988 interview, when told Bush said his plane had been on fire. "Did he say that?" he asked. He asserted that the impression he'd gotten in conversations with Bush shortly after he was picked up by the sub, was that his plane had not been on fire. This account is conveniently forgotten by Stinnett.) In an apparent conflict as to dates, Stinnett cites, as his source for Bush Chichi Jima material, the log of the Finnback, as follows: "Report of War Patrol Number Ten of USS Finnback (SS-230) dated October 4, 1944, Serial 030. (Stinnett 200). Apparently, that entry is where we have the current assumption that Bush was picked up on that date. Thus, although the film clearly exists, and though Bush clearly was picked up, when was he picked up? Did the incident occur on some other date besides September 2, 1944? Although an unofficial San Jacinto newspaper supposedly records the event, (Stinnett 153), this is not an official record: the only official record, that of Squadron Commander Don Melvin, is undated. Indeed, Tarpley and Chaitkin assert that the date has been removed. The ship's newspaper was not part of the San Jacinto's log that remained classified until the 1980s, yet it wasn't referred to in any Bush account as even existing until the 1992 Presidential campaign was heating up, when it suddenly appeared as if from nowhere.

According to Bush crewman Leo Nadeau, and his log that he kept their flights of that time period, on June 19, 1944, they were in the air for approximately 1.5 hours before water-landing. Since, if the unnumbered, out of format page of the C. K. Bronson log is to be believed, they were picked up at 1310 hours--only one minute after being sighted at 1309 (on the previous, numbered page)-- this suggests a take-off time of approximately 11:40 a.m. However, Nadeau today says they took off at 1157 hours. (Stinnett 73).

One other event about June 19, 1944 is interesting. At about 10:30 a.m., that day, all Japanese aircraft in the area, from both the land and sea branches of the Japanese air forces, were ordered to orbit around the US fleet off Guam and Saipan, as they were never ordered to do before or after during World War II. (Hoyt 150).There was no military advantage at all to the Japanese in doing this, since the only effect the orbit had was to give the US carriers more time to get their planes off deck and avoid Japanese bombs.

On the other hand, the fact the orbit was ordered for planes of both branches of the Japanese military, suggests it was ordered by someone who could be construed as "over" both branches simultaneously--that is, someone in the Japanese government. Thus, the maneuver strongly suggests it was a diplomatic rather than a military activity.

Why? Allen Dulles was then trying to arrange a negotiated peace with the Axis, behind FDR's back, according to John Loftus and Mark Aarons. (The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People NY: St. Martin's, 1994. 150-173.) He used couriers to do so. The Japanese planes could have maneuvered in such a way to ensure the courier in question on that date, had an opportunity to take off.

Lest we think Dulles wouldn't cover up such an activity, we learn from Charles Higham in American Swastika(New York: Doubleday, 1985. 78), that one Martin James Monti was allowed to go over to the other side in a US military aircraft in Italy in 1943, broadcast fascist propaganda, then not only avoid prosecution for treason after the war, but was also promoted in the military--through the intervention of OSS bigwig and later CIA head Allen Dulles--who was Prescott Bush's attorney and business partner at Standard Oil (which company was found guilty of treason during the War in a 1947 trial)--and also business partner there with James Forrestal, then-Secretary of the Navy and later Secretary of Defense.

In July 1944, about a month later, US Marine Tom Devine, who was then stationed on Saipan, an island not far from Guam, saw Forrestal on Saipan. He had personally flow in an aircraft from a nearby island (possibly Guam--an island large enough, according to a report by the Japanese military on Guam operations published in 1960, to hide a military aircraft, especially one with folding wings such as the Avenger had).

Devine says he then saw Forrestal destroy or burn the aircraft and records that a US submarine that month recorded burning, sinking wreckage off Saipan that month, at a time when no shipping had been sunk. (Devine, Thomas. Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident. Frederick, CO: Renaissance. 1980. 37-57; 87 Note to page 80; page 188 Note 27: "Nancy Bressler, Curator of Public Affair at Princeton University's Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton, NJ...[said]: 'I am not able to locate any documents which either support or contradict Mr. Forresetal's presence on Saipan in the summer of 1944.'") What plane was Forrestal destroying?

Could it have been George Bush's Avenger, which had landed on Guam during a "window" that was known to exist between the first US air raids on Guam at 8 a.m, on June 19 and the late afternoon raids by US planes on that island--raids that were called off temporarily at around 8:30 and didn't resume until after 4 p.m.? During that time, US planes were largely tied up fighting off Japanese planes attacking the US fleet . (Hoyt, Edwin P. To the Marianas: War in the Central Pacific, 1944. NY: Avon, 1980. 149-51.)

During that same time when the Japanese planes performed their odd "orbit" (which forever after earned that battle--the Battle of the Philippines Sea--the nickname "Marianas Turkey shoot" by American military personnel who participated), George Bush's Avenger took off. It was precisely during that "window" that both the Japanese orbit and the opening to Guam occurred.

US Navy fliers, including Bush and his crew, had learned that the Japanese didn't fire on lone US aircraft, for fear of drawing down US naval gunfire. (Crowl

Additionally, to act as Axis couriers for the Vatican, which we now know was working with Dulles in his couriers-to-the-Axis project, were some suspicious Roman Catholic priests which the Japanese had placed on Guam after November 1942, when they'd removed the original priests. According to George Tweed, a US Navy seaman who remained on Guam as a guerilla fighter after it fell to the Japanese in December 1941, these priests engaged in a number of pro-Axis activities; and one's brother was a big-name banker on the island who readily collaborated with Japan during the War. (Tweed, George Ray. Robinson Crusoe, USN: The Adventures of George R. Tweed, RM1 on Japanese-held Guam Guam: 1994 Pacific Research Institute. 275.)

Perhaps these priests served to supplement the Vatican courier network we now know Dulles had created in Japanese-occupied Manchuria during 1944 and '45. He used a Roman Catholic priest, Bishop Cikota, to operate that courier network, which included Vatican intelligence personnel. One group of Vatican intelligence personnel is the Knights of Malta. (Loftus and Aarons, 150-173.)

The vice-president of the Standard Oil company during World War II was Richard J. Larkin. He was a Knight of Malta (so knighted by the Pope in 1928). (Higham, Charles. Trading With the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot, 1937-1949. NY: Delacorte, 1983. 21.) Larkin engaged heavily in illegal banking activities with the Axis in Vichy France bank branches. (Higham, Trading, "The Chase Nazi Account", 20-31.)

In addition, Standard sold tons of aviation fuel to the Axis during the War. Nelson Rockefeller was recorded doing so by Jewish intelligence over the telephone in April 1943, and blackmailed. Loftus, John and Mark Aarons. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. New York: St. Martin's, 1994. 160-173.)

Similarly, the 1942 Truman Committee in Congress found 1941 cables from Standard promising to continue trade with Japan whether or not American came into the war. Documents were also located after the war pledging Standard to continue selling oil to Axis agents in German occupied Romania and Hungary throughout the war. (Higham, Trading, "The Secrets of Standard Oil", 32-62.)

In May, 1944, while George Bush flew his first mission in the Pacific, his father, on the Boards of Directors of several Standard Oil affiliates, went along with the sale of oil to Fascist Spain, after Standard oil and other oil companies pressured FDR to allow them to do so. This, even though FDR had learned that the oil to Spain went to Germany. (Higham, Trading60-1.

In October and November, 1942, Prescott Bush, George Bush's father, was indicted for being a "front man" for Nazi loans in the US. (Tarpley and Chaitkin, Unauthorized Biography, "Born in A Bank".)

By 1944, both Forrestal and Dulles were under surveillance by FDR because he'd learned of their schemes to negotiate with the Axis and "aid and abet" them via selling them oil. (Loftus and Aarons, 151-173).

Against this backdrop, these suspicious-looking records as to George Bush's activities must be re-examined. As people have asked about other dates, such as October 19, 1980 (the "October surprise"), November 22, 1963 (an FBI memo from J. Edgar Hoover to "CIA agent George Bush" of November 23, 1963), (Tarpley and Chaitkin, Unauthorized Biography "Rubbers Goes To Washington") and the summer of 1968 (when the Saigon regime began to balk on LBJ's proposed peace agreement at the Paris peace talks), (Boller, Paul. Presidential Campaigns. NY: Oxford UP, 1985. "Mrs. Chennault," 331-2) so perhaps we should also ask about these World War II events:

Where was George?

Click here to visit "Permission to Date Ahead"

Click here to visit "The Intercept: A Smoking Gun?"

Click here to visit "How It Came to Be Called the 'Marianas Turkey Shoot"

Click here to visit my Bibliography

Click here to visit my Updated Annnotated Bibliography

Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website

Click here to visit my larger and more recently updated George Bush-Undercurrents Website at AT&T

[Following is an e-mail exchange and additional updates on deck log records--mcs]

Subject: Fw: MARCHING AROUND WITH GOONS; ties to Luce, Hunt | Date: Sunday, January 07, 2001 1:29 AM

From: MAX STANDRIDGE

Subject: Re: MARCHING AROUND WITH GOONS; ties to Luce, Hunt

Date: Sunday, January 07, 2001 1:24 AM

Hello Mr. Quig, kind professors, publishers and all:

I am fully occupied with researching WW2 activities.

One of the points I was making below was that Mr. Casolaro was spreading himself too thin. He couldn't even act as a guide to those investigating his death as a result. I am very concerned not only about the Bush Administration's approach to our own domestic environment, but their approach to the environment in other nations, as well. The Amazon is in grave danger, and with it, our ozone layer.

You mention Clare Booth Luce below, and one of the interesting things about this, is when you look under MARC at the OCLC listings, there is a mention of Luce's having a special "dedication" in some edition of Alexander Haig's book Caveat. This dedication doesn't appear in most editions of the book available today. This is another indicator that Haig does engage in the kinds of activities I speculate on and evaluate in my chapter "Alexander Haig and the First Edition of The Immaculate Deception." (Click here to visit "Alexander Haig and the First Edition of the Immaculate Deception at my larger and more recently updated George Bush-Undercurrents Website at AT&T

Speaking of the latter book, (full current title being The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed by Brig. Gen. Russel S. Bowen (ret.) Carson City, NV: America West, 1991), I've been re-reading the final chapters of| it, where General Bowen discusses the activities of W and his brothers. There's an interesting coincidence of events wherein W.'s investment in the Saudi offshore company Harken Corporation, and how it paid huge dividends | for him as the result of his father's Persian Gulf War. The "investigative journalists" went to his dad and asked him if this was, in fact, done to help W. make money. Of course, dad said no, and that was that. So much for that "investigation."

Perhaps even more interesting is your mention of the ties to H. L. Hunt, an individual still mentioned as a target of investigative writing in the currently-available book Black Gold by Frederick Bean (which may or may not be the original source of the "akk" syllable radio ad). . .

There are many funny-looking, suspicious-looking ties out there. Other folks will have to investigate them. I am concerned about the on-going policies put in place by these many possible undercurrents, but must focus on the threads I have in my hand. If I go further afield, I risk losing what I already have. Right now, I'm awaiting the arrival of the written transcript of the court-martial of Leo W. Nadeau of June 25-30, 1944. I want to read that for myself.

[Update: I must regretfully say that Mr. Nadeau's court-martial transcript has been destroyed, according to a letter from a Lt. Col. Neesen at the courts-martial records offices. It appears that such records are only kept for approximately 15 years after date, or, in the case of a wartime event, 15 years after the official end of the conflict. Perhaps of interest here, is that the end of WW2 was, officially, sometime in 1947 or '48--I recall it wasn't 1945 or '46 at all. Fifteen years from then, would have been 1962 or 1963--with JFK in office. JFK, we recall, was assassinated in 1963 by what some claim were triangulated rifle fire teams that included Cubans GHWBush had been training in Miami on weekends. (More on this is found in Tarpley and Chaitkin, as well as in my references to their research on this in George Bush and Me.

I'm also awaiting the arrival of deck log pages from the USS Princeton, among some other ships, for some specific dates immediately surrounding the shoot-down of a Japanese "Betty" bomber and the pick up of its crew "circa" June 23, 1944. I want to see if these pages have as many oddities in the way they are set up as the pages of the CK Bronson, San Jacinto, Lexington, and Healy have on some other dates of immediate siginficance to this research.

[Update: the decklogs of the USS Dortch and Terry contain NO references to the June 23, 1944 shoot-down of the Japanese plane. Not only this, but they are nearby or actually in the formation at the time.

Additionally, the log of the USS Princeton, while it records the shoot-down of the "Betty" as occurring on"June 23," does so only after it would appear that the USS Healy had pulled into the "guide" or "lead" position in the formation. For, early in the a.m. of June 23, in the Healy's log, it records itself as maneuvering around and sometimes in front of the tanker ships, which are then, in all ships' logs, recorded as in the lead at around three hours later--and a day earlier--than the Healy's log. Once the Healy pulled into the lead, it's possible its log was the reference point of the formation for whatever time it remained in the lead. In this case, it's interesting to note that this needn't have been for more than a few minutes, since the Healy was sent out to pick up the survivors of the Japanese "Betty" at around noon on "June 23"--which would have been around 9 or 10 am on June 22, if GMT (Zulu) time were being used by the oither ships, while the Healy used Tokyo time.

The Princeton's log also records an event at about 24 hours earlier and three hours later that is remarkably similar to the Betty shoot-down. It records that it was ordered by fleet command to emergency launch a combat air patrol of eight aircraft at around 9 to 10, and that, during that same time, a Japanese aircraft was shot down by planes from the USS Wasp. Shortly afterward, it records that a Japanese liferaft was seen, empty. This is interesting in that the men in the water who were picked up by the Healy were not in a liferaft, but were merely in the water, afloat with the wreckage.]

One other point on: this investigaton of former President George H. W. Bush in WW2 is not just historically significant. Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution tells us that any former President, regardless of whether he's still in | | office, can still be investigated for treason "for the life of the person so atttainted.." The penalty for treason in a declared war (WW2 was a declared war) is or can be extremely severe. Part of W's prestige, rests on his father's prestige--which is, in turn, in part built on his reputation as a pilot in WW2. Sincerely, mstandridge@aristotle.net

To: MAX STANDRIDGE ; cia-drugs@e-groups.com

Subject: MARCHING AROUND WITH GOONS

Date: Saturday, January 06, 2001 4:23 AM

The extent to which American politics is contrived can be seen in the early associations of Rehnquist in Phoenix with panels involving: Clare Booth Luce, Robert Welsh,( the founder of the John Birch Society), man named Spencer who was the founder of LIBERTY LOBBY before Carto, H.L. Hunt [--my emphasis--mcs]. When one considers the staying power of the above it gets a bit scary.The phrase the Mormons have for this kind of thing is "secret combination".In my opinion they are still all working together. -- Brian Quig

From: Brian Downing Quig To: MAX STANDRIDGE Subject: Rehnquist the racist and the SUPREME COURT presidential | decision Date: Friday, December 29, 2000 8:43 PM After I see a nation of sheep not even collectively bah over the SUPREME COURT selection of W. Bush for president it refreshes my hopes a bit to see someone focusing upon the essentials. The only account of how the attorney Rehenquist representing Kemper Marley helped Marley beat the rap where 52 of his employees went to prison including Jim and Gene Hensley, the father-in-law of Senator John McCain is contained in my article about Marley,

[Click here to go to Brian's site--mcs->]THE DEATH IN ARIZONA OF THE KEMPER MARLEY MACHINE .

I confused Jim and Gene Hensley and have not corrected the mistake as yet. It is Gene not his brother Jim who is John McCain's father-in-law. But the Marley machine did not exactly die in Arizona. Kemper Marley's attorneys are the junior Senator John Kyl and the Chief Justice and the son-in-law of his partner is senior Senator John McCain. And if you read my article Kemper Marley was not a nice guy. He bragged that it only cost him 2 million dollars to cover up his car bomb murder of reporter Don Bolles. I think your interest in this is very healthy. But be careful. Rehnquist is not a nice guy. The full sordid details of Rehnquist's NAZI like behaviors are to be found in the archives of THE NEW TIMES MAGAZINE which has a web site. Be prepared for the shock that everything that I have stated is understated. Brian Downing Quig .

Go back to The George Bush-Undercurrents Website