Lot of noise being made about Purple Hearts

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 23 Aug 2004 20:51:31 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 23 Aug 2004 14:13:26 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 20 Aug 2004 11:09:32 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



I'll give more stock to the men whom we know were on the boat with
Kerry, and are willing to stand with him today, over what we are told
is said by others whom we are told were on other boats.
...

Personally, I'm putting very little stock into the words of the "band
of brothers" who seem to be getting a lot of travel, perks and
"face-time" by being loyal to Senator Kerry.

That sounds remarkably close to slander.

How is it slander to claim that I put little stock into their words?
Or, is it slander to point out that they are traveling the country
with the candidate and not at their own expense? I've not come close
to slander in the slightest.

It is slanderous to imply that they are lying in exchange for the
privilege of traveling about the country at the DNC's expense.


They don't seem to be
bothered by his subsequent slander of his "brothers" when he completed
his 4 months of duty.


As we have previously discussed, Kerry did not slander them though
arguably it is slander to claim that he did.

Lemme see now, if you quote "Viet vets" and your own experience in the
Senate testimony under oath that accuses the military in Vietnam of
atrocities, war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention, etc.

See below. Typically the whole body of treaties comprising the
laws of warfare are referred by the umbrella term Geneva Conventions
even though the treaties may have been negotiated in the Hague or
other cities. I'll use the term that way.

knowing (or at least you should have known before becoming the
organization's front-man) that they are lying, often not combat vets
and often not vets at all are you not slandering me? (See Burkett's
"Stolen Valor" for evidence on the veracity and qualifications of the
Winter Soldier testimony. --Burkett's work has been thoroughly
peer-reviewed and examined for accuracy.)

While 'peer review' is not without its uses in other fields when
one moves outside of the sciences it does little to assure accuracy.
For example, had Pons and Fleichman submitted their famous 'cold
fusion' paper to peer review they would never have published because
their peers would have pointed out the major flaw in their
methodology.
In an investigation of historical fact, acceptable methodology is
nowhere near as well-defined as in science, nor does it do as well
to assure accuracy. That's not a reflection on the intellect, skill,
or honesty of the writer and reviewer, just a consequence of the
nature
of the field itself.

If you have a copy of the book, perhaps you'd like to post a list of
WSI witnesses whom Burkett claims to debunk. Not organisers, or
supporters, but witnesses, those who gave 'testimony'. I'll
check that list against lists of witnesses and their testimony.


If you go on "Meet the Press" and state that the command structure
from the top down to the field officer was complicit in ordering,
prescribing, tolerating war crimes are you not slandering me?

No more so than I slander you and myself today when I blame you
and myself for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.


If you say that abiding by the ROE is a war crime are you not
slandering me?


To my knowledge, Kerry never said "abiding by the ROE is a war crime"
It is easy to criticise someone for words YOU put in his mouth.
However, if the ROE themselves call for violations of the GC, then
one may commit a war crime by acts that fall within the ROE, right?

If you say that using a .50 cal against personnel is a
war crime (it isn't!) and I've used 20MM Vulcan against troops in the
open are you not slandering me?

No, I am not. Since the 1868 St Petersburg declaration several
nations have prohibitted the use of explosive or incindiery
projectiles weighing less than 400 grams (approximately the weight
of a 37mm shell). The development of the warplane motivated
a refinement such that use of said ammunition against aircraft,
or other vehicles was not a crime while retaining the prohibition
for antipersonell use. Also, unlike some provisions of the Geneva
Conventions, the declaration is not reciprocal. Signatory nations
consider violation of the declaration by any nation to be a war
crime.

As you know, the 12.7 mm (.50 cal) HMG has used a variety of
ammunition including solid, tracer, explosive, armor piercing,
and incindiery, often a mix of two or more of these was used
in the same belt. In Norway (and I suppose probably many other
European countries) the 12.7 mm HMG is dedicated to anti-aircraft
use, the standard load is HE. So when Europeans read of the
US using .50 cal machine guns I suspect they assumed it was
used with explosive, rather than solid, projectiles. I believe
that this contributed to the misconception that use of the
..50 cal per se, was a war crime and Kerry was factually mistaken
in the matter IF his .50 was firing solid projectiles. A bit
of googling shows he is not alone, it appears to be a common
misconception.

On its face the antipersonell use of tracers would seem to violate
the St Petersburg declaration but I'm skeptical that anyone would
interpret it that narrowly.

However it is clear that using a 20mm against troops in the open
is a violation of the St Petersburg declaration, even as modified,
and would therefor be considered a war crime by any signatory
nation. That the US is not a signatory nation, said use permitted
by the ROE, and you would never be prosecuted in a US court for
the non-violation of US law does not make is slander if someone
were to accuse you of a war crime. It IS a war crime in many
(perhaps most) civilized nations and those officers in the chain
of command from the CIC on down who order or permit the anti-
personell use of explosive projectiles under 400 grams are
war criminals according to the laws of those nations even
if those nations do not assert prosecutorial jurisdiction.

Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans. That
we had not officially acknowledged, or accepted those same
laws was regarded as evidence of guilt, not as a defense.

Another issue was the use of CS chemical agent (tear gas).
There are GC prohibitions against poisonous, deleterious or
other gases, clearly not limited to lethal gasses, and understood
to not be limitted to gasses as most such agents were atomized
liquids. CS, in fact, is a solid particulate. But there is
no need to quibble over the issue of how 'deleterious' a
chemical weapon need be to be prohibited. The CS munitions
used by the US in tunnels and bunkers in Vietnam produced
and dispersed CS by combustion, which also produced, as a
by product, carbon monoxide. CO IS a gas and IS poisonous.
The CS munitions used in tunnels in Vietnam killed. Some
of the victims were friendlies who made the mistake of
thinking that a gas mask would provide adequate protection.

Another issue is the use of napalm. Weapons that cause excessive
suffering are prohibitted on principle. By the Vietnam era
most European nations had abandoned the use of incindiery
anti-personell weapons on that basis so many regarded the
use by the US to be a war crime.

That the US did not recognise these are war crimes does not
exhonerate us, rather it condemns us for permitting the use
of weapons the rest of the civilized world had outlawed or
restricted.

If you say that employing ordinance in
a free-fire zone is a war crime--knowing that free fire zones are
militarily controlled areas held by the enemy, are you not slandering
me?

Ignoring your staw man I'll point out that the term 'free fire zone'
can be used in practice in a manner that constitutes a war crime:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...ORCE/110210076

Under questioning during the Army investigation, at
least eight officers with authority over Tiger Force
- mostly captains and majors - swore that free-fire
zones gave the men the right to "kill anything that
moved."


If you say that bombing campaigns are war crimes and I've
dutifully engaged in 250 combat missions are you not slandering me?

Not if you dutifully engage in those missions because, as I'm
sure you'll agree, your duty forbad you from comitting
a war crime.

However:

S. BRIAN WILLSON, [who is NOT a John Kerry supporter, FF]
, http://www.brianwillson.com
As head of a 40-man USAF combat security
unit in Vietnam, I was separately tasked to assess 'success'
of targeted bombings. I discovered egregious war crimes --
daylight terror bombings of undefended fishing and rice
farming villages resulting in mass murders and maimings of
hundreds of residents.

If you can show that Mr Wilson was not the 'head of a 40-man USAF
combat security unit in Vietnam' etc etc, please let me know.


It isn't slander for me to apply what he clearly said in the Senate
and to Tim Russert on Meet the Press and call it lies.

It is slanderous for you take what he said out of context and to
misquote him. In another article we addresse the issue of how
it must be obvious to a man of your intelligence, when Kerry
was speaking generally, or for others, and when he was speaking
personally for himself.



Sorry I didn't pick up on this in my earlier reply but can you show
that there are 60 Swift Boat veterans who contend that Kerry is
'Unfit for Command' IIUC, the authors of the book claim only that
60 contributed to the book, not that they are all agreed on the
conclusion.

I understand your parsing here, and while it might be quite good in a
courtroom, it doesn't pass the (un)-common sense test of daily
discourse in usenet. Consider this, I'm going to write a book. I'm
planning to call it "Unfit for Command". I'm planning to entire a
political firefight challenging a major presidential candidate's
credentials. I ask you to contribute. What do you do if you don't
agree with the thesis of my book?

To directly address your question, I would make honest and truthful
statements to the authors. Why, what would you do?


No answer?

But your hypothetical presumes over much. First, you assume 60
persons really did contribute, and really know that they contributed.
Perhaps you base that on faith in the authors. I don't know the
authors myself, and am not willing to make that presumption.

My point is that if I'm writing a book in which I'm seeking your
testimony about the actions of someone in combat with the intent to
disprove that individual's assertions about his own action, you won't
contribute your name to the effort if you don't agree with the book's
thesis. You're more intelligent than that.

And my point is that you don't have to tell me the thesis of your
book in order to talk with me about my experiences. I'm more
trusting than that. Even if you do, and I disagree with it I
might not stonewall you. I might be quite willing to talk with
you hoping to disabuse you of your misconceptions.

I'm contributing to this discussion right now. We agree on very
little. In the future if you write about your UseNet experiences
you could honestly claim that I was a contributor.


Second you presume that the authors informed the persons they
interviewed of their intent befor even interviewing them. How could that be
unless the authors reached their conclusions befor doing their research?

This isn't academic research. It is historic recounting of the
experiences of the authors. It is collection of supporting information
to validate what they already know and to bolster their thesis.

Non sequitor. That does not preclude interviewing 60 people
most of whom, for example have no opinion on the thesis itself
and simply corraborate objective historical information.
E.g. 60 contributors to the book does not prove 60 people
support the thesis.

Don't
confuse it with science in which you postulate and then conduct
experiments to substantiate your hypothesis. You don't need to do a
"double-blind" on your own experiences.

I don't need 60 witnesses either.


Third, you assume that the authors informed those they interviewed
of that conclusion, or that they read the book. Otherwise, how would
they know what conclusion the authors had reached?

Few publishers will allow authors to quote individuals without
questioning the author regarding the accuracy and authorizations for
those quotes.

Now you are assuming all 60 were quoted. One may contribute without
being quoted.

....

You may recall several weeks ago there was a fairly extensive document
with photos of Swifties at all levels of the chain of command who had
come forward in May of this year in a press conference in Washington
DC at the National Press Club.

No, I missed that. Can you direct me to a copy of that document?

At your service:
http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index...SwiftVetQuotes




Now that he has started down that path *I* personally would like
to see him continue and explain his actions after his return to the
US.

It is also a repudiation of the actions of the Senator after his brief
combat service.

No.

He doesn't appear to be running on his war resistance. That position
served him for an earlier election. Now he's running on his war
participation and running away from his record (much more substantial)
as a resister.

He needs to advance the clock and explain why he came out against
the war, or more accurately, against American participation in the
war. Many Americans went through a similare transition at that
time and more recently in regard to the Iraq campaign. For
example a Navy aviation verteran who lives next door to me
who confidently stated that we'd 'stomp them into a mudhole'.
befor the invasion, pointed out that is pretty much what we did
just after the fall of Baghdad, and now regards the Bush
administration much as he does LBJ.


Apropos so long as the '60 contributors' to the book remain unamed.

Have you read the book?


No. Have you?

Someone who has has posted elsewhere in this thread that the 60
contibutors are named. For the moment that satifies my concerns
as none of your speculation could. People who have the means
to do so can contact them and ask appropriate questions.

I expect that if any of those 60 named dispute the authors,
we'll hear about it.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans.

Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there. Europe's issue with
the U.S. was political, not legal.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Much of the European animosity toward the US during that era
was a consequence of the US operating in a matter that violated
the laws of war that were accepted by the Europeans.

Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

Europe's issue with
the U.S. was political, not legal.


Non sequitor. Just because the French did it too doesn't mean
it wasn't against the laws of war as generally recognized by
Europeans nor does it mean that they can't hate us for doing
the same.

Aside from which, France is not the only nation in Europe.

--

FF

In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...
Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against
troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

20mm HE from Bearcats, at the very least.

Explosive rounds with a mass under a certain limit (Hague or St.
Petersburg, can't recall offhand): technical war crime. (One of those
ignored issues because everyone found 20mm+ cannon so useful for
shooting at "stuff" and therefore also fired them at people _outside_
trucks, trains, cars, tanks, ships etc.)


There was a prohibition against firing rounds weighing less than, IIRC,
400g (just under a pound) at people. This led to the interwar selection
of 1.1" for the US light antiaircraft gun, to keep the shell 'legal' for
firing at manned aircraft. It appears to have been gently allowed to
fall into abeyance, like only-recently-rescinded laws about it being
legal to shoot Welshmen with bow and arrow in certain British towns
after the hours of darkness, when everyone discovered how useful 20mm
cannon were.

But more relevant, there is no reason at all why firing ball rounds from
a .50 machine gun at enemy combatants should be less than lawful.
There's a persistent myth that it's illegal to fire .50" at people, and
it just isn't true.

It might be possible to claim that firing 'explosive bullets' of under
the proscribed weight is a war crime, which would make every 20mm
strafing run an atrocity: but by the time of Vietnam this fell into
"long-accepted custom" with every nation that could strafe troops having
done so with 20-23mm cannon.

The law was written around the idea that undersized low-velocity
explosive bullets with a few grains of black powder as burster and
unreliable fuzes were excessively injurious to people and ineffective
against hardware. Time rapidly produced much more effective
small-calibre rounds that *were* effective against machinery and
vehicles.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
(BUFDRVR) wrote in message
...
Wrong. The French were using larger than .50 calibre weapons against
troops in
SE Asia a decade before Ed began straffing troops there.

I'll take your word for that. What ammo was used?

20mm HE from Bearcats, at the very least.

Explosive rounds with a [explosive, FF] mass under a certain limit
(Hague or St. Petersburg, can't recall offhand): technical war crime.

St Petersburg was the first such prohibition though the US Army
decided, as a matter of policy, to eschew them as well for the
same reasons, they exacerbated the injuries to men who would
have been disabled by the plain ammunition of the day.

The mass limit was 400 gms, approximately the mass of a 37 mm
cannon.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1914m/gene68.html

My previous statement about the St Pete not being reciprocal was
incorrect, though there is a tendency for alleged crimes to be
tried according to the laws of the nations holding the trial,
regardless of what laws were accepted by the defendant's nation.
Entirely justified, IMHO, so long as it is the decision makers
and not the soldiers in the field who are on trial.

(One of those
ignored issues because everyone found 20mm+ cannon so useful for
shooting at "stuff" and therefore also fired them at people _outside_
trucks, trains, cars, tanks, ships etc.)

It appears that the Prohibition was observed without controversy
from 1868 until WWI when the British began using incindiery (also
banned) ammunition in their aircraft. The Germans protested, but
then withdrew their protest apparently decided they preferred
to use the same themselves.

It would seem that tracers are also banned, but it is hard to
imagine a .50 cal tracer exacerbating injuries to a person,
compared to .50 cal hardball. Is there a difference, historically,
between ammuniton designated as tracer and that designated as
incindiery?


... It appears to have been gently allowed to
fall into abeyance, like only-recently-rescinded laws about it being
legal to shoot Welshmen with bow and arrow in certain British towns
after the hours of darkness, when everyone discovered how useful 20mm
cannon were.

So the British have discovered that the 20mm is useful for shooting
Welshmen after dark?


But more relevant, there is no reason at all why firing ball rounds from
a .50 machine gun at enemy combatants should be less than lawful.
There's a persistent myth that it's illegal to fire .50" at people, and
it just isn't true.

Agreed. The only basis I can find for that myth is the St Petersburg
(and subsequent) declarations, coupled with the assumption that the
ammunition is incindiery or explosive. I found one Usenet article
by a Norwegian named Per who said the standard ammuniton for a
12.7 mm HMG in Norway was HE, and intended for use against helicopters.


It might be possible to claim that firing 'explosive bullets' of under
the proscribed weight is a war crime, which would make every 20mm
strafing run an atrocity: but by the time of Vietnam this fell into
"long-accepted custom" with every nation that could strafe troops having
done so with 20-23mm cannon.


IMHO the prohibition became unworkable as soon as it became lawful
to issue weapons with the previously proscribed ammunition for
any purpose. You simply cannot expect a soldier in combat to
decline to use any weapon at his disposal.

....

Mr Rasimus, in another ng, says that he is unaware that explosive
ammunition has ever been used in .50 cal. Here and there over the
years I have seen references to explosive .50 cal or 12.7 mm ammuntion.
What is the history here?


--

FF

In message , Fred the
Red Shirt writes
Mr Rasimus, in another ng, says that he is unaware that explosive
ammunition has ever been used in .50 cal. Here and there over the
years I have seen references to explosive .50 cal or 12.7 mm ammuntion.
What is the history here?

There was an explosive round developed in .50" for spotting rifles and
ranging machine guns, usually mounted coaxially with tank guns or above
the barrel of recoilless rifles: ballistically matched to the main gun,
you could aim and fire, and be rewarded with a bright flash if you were
on target (thus cueing you to fire a 106mm or 120mm shell rather than a
..50" bullet). Don't think it was used in machine guns, though. (It might
be the source of the "can't shoot .50 at people" story)




More recently, Raufoss in Norway developed a multipurpose round that
didn't require a mechanical fuze and scaled down as far as 12.7mm, and
it's now quite widely used (by the UK and US among many others). It's a
relatively (10-15 years) recent development, but extremely effective.

http://www.nammo.com/medium_calibre/...Anchor-MP-8889
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ions/mk211.htm

"The standard design of Multipurpose ammunition (20 - 40 mm) consist of
an aluminium nose cap press filled with an incendiary charge on top of
the shell body (heat treated steel) which again is press filled with a
HE charge and an incendiary charge. The projectile can also be equipped
with a tracer and a self-destruct element.

The 12.7 mm Multipurpose projectile differs from the standard design by
using a tungsten carbide hardcore to increase penetration capabilities
and being encased in a copper jacket. Since Multipurpose ammunition is a
fuse-less design and do not have any sensitive primary high explosive
components (only secondary high explosive) it does not have the safety
risk associated with fused projectiles and does not produce dangerous
duds.

Functioning of the Multipurpose projectile is obtained by hitting the
target (light or heavy) inducing a fast deformation of the nose cap
which is press filled with the incendiary charge. Upon reaching the
ignition criteria for the incendiary charge the charge will start
burning and subsequently ignite the HE charge resulting in the
fragmentation of the shell body. Sensitivity is dependent on the
deformation speed of the nose cap and the high speed associated with a
projectile travelling down the trajectory is needed to obtain the
necessary sensitivity. "




--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in message . com...
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
....

Lemme see now, if you quote "Viet vets" and your own experience in the
Senate testimony under oath that accuses the military in Vietnam of
atrocities, war crimes, violations of the Geneva Convention, etc.
...
knowing (or at least you should have known before becoming the
organization's front-man)

Kerry himself, though at first defensive of Hubbard, apparently
checked
out the accusations and then outed Hubbard him befor the VVAW:

rding to the FBI:

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/1497_0_2_0

Kerry's Commie Friends
By Cliff Kincaid | May 7, 2004

....

The documents on several occasions report that Kerry believed that one
of the founders of VVAW, Al Hubbard, who claimed to be a decorated
Vietnam vet, had never served in Vietnam, and had never been a member
of the military. One document says, "John Kerry again attempted to
have Al Hubbard voted off the executive committee as Kerry stated he
did not think Hubbard ever served in Vietnam or was ever in service."
[Kerry] saw [Hubbard] in July, and according to FBI [files on Vietnam
Veterans Against the War] and the minutes of those meetings, [Kerry]
probably saw him in November [1971] too," Nicosia said.
....


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1252298.html

Marc Morano
Senior Staff Writer

....

Kerry and Hubbard had a heated argument at the St. Louis meeting in
July that was "witnessed by 200 veterans," according to Nicosia.

Despite the presidential candidate's claim last week that Hubbard had
not hurt the anti-war group's credibility in 1971, Kerry actually
believed otherwise, according to Nicosia.

"There was a big fight with Al Hubbard in which Kerry confronted him
and they were screaming at each other across the hall," Nicosia
explained. Hubbard, who had ties to the radical Black Panthers group,
and Kerry "couldn't have been more opposite personalities," Nicosia
said.

The simmering tension between the two men finally reached a boil in
St. Louis, Nicosia said, with Kerry shouting, "Who are you, Al
Hubbard? Are you even really a veteran?

****

However, Hubbard was NOT a WSI witness.

that they are lying, often not combat vets
and often not vets at all are you not slandering me? (See Burkett's
"Stolen Valor" for evidence on the veracity and qualifications of the
Winter Soldier testimony. --Burkett's work has been thoroughly
peer-reviewed and examined for accuracy.)

...

If you have a copy of the book, perhaps you'd like to post a list of
WSI witnesses whom Burkett claims to debunk. Not organisers, or
supporters, but witnesses, those who gave 'testimony'. I'll
check that list against lists of witnesses and their testimony.


Tell you what, I'll go first. Here's a list of WSI witnesses. You
can tell us which of these Burkett debunked and what he had to say
about them.

Alex Primm, 26, SP/4 (E-4), Public Information Office, 1st Logistics
Command, Headquarters (September 1968 to June 1969)

Allen Akers, 25, Pfc. (E-2), "E" Co., 2nd Bn., 4th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Division (May 1965 to March 1966)

Allan Crouse, 22 (E-4), 3rd Engineers Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division
(January 1969 to December 1969)

Barry Hopkins, 23, 3/39th, 9th Infantry Division (January 1969 to
January 1970)

Bill Perry, 23, Pfc. (E-3), "A" Co., 1/506, 101st Airborne Division
(November 1966 to August 1968)

Carl Rippberger, 23, (E-4), "K" Troop, 3rd Squad, 11th Armored Cav.
Reg., attached to 9th Infantry Division (May 1967 to May 1968)

Charles Leffler, 25, Pfc. (E-3), "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 26 Marine Reg., 9th
Marine Amphibious Brigade, LRRP, attached to 1st and 3rd Marine
Division (September 1968 to September 1969)

Charles Stephens, 24, Pfc. (E-3), 1/327, 101st Airborne Division
(December 1965 to February 1967)

Christopher Simpson, 21, Cpl. (E-4), "E" Co., 2nd Bn., 5th Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Div. (1967-1968)

Christopher Soares, 20, L/Cpl. (E-3), "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (February 1969 to April 1969)

Curtis Wingrodski, 22, SP/4, 59th Scout Dog, 11th Brigade, Americal
Division (March 1969 to October 1969)

David Bishop, 21, L/Cpl., "H" Co., 2nd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division

David Chiles, 24, SP/4 (E-4), 3/4, 25th Infantry Division (January
1968 to December 1968)

David Cohen, Naval Coastal, Division 11 (November 1966 to November
1967)

David Stark, 25, SP/5 (E-5), 524 Military Intelligence Detachment
(October 1967 to October 1968)

Dennis Butts, 24, SP/4 (E-4), HHQ Co., 2/12, 25th Infantry Division
and "E" Co., 4/39, 9th Infantry Division (September 1966 to September
1967)

Dennis Caldwell, 24, CWO-2, "A" Trp., 3/17, Air Cav., 1st Aviation
Brigade (October 1968 to October 1969)

Don Pugsley, 23, SP/4, 5th Special Forces (October 1969 to December
1969)

Donald Donner, 24, SP/4 (E-4), 20th Brigade, 86th Combat Engineers
(August 1967 to July 1968)

Don Dzagulones, 23, SP/5, 635th Military Intelligence Detachment,
attached to 11th Infantry Brigade, Americal Division (January 1969 to
December 1969)

Douglas Craig, 22, SP/4, "D" Co., 2nd Bn., 8th Brigade, 1st Air Cav.
Division (December 1968 to August 1969)

Doug Wright, SP/4, 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division

Ed Murphy, 23, Sgt. (E-5), 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (October
1967 to September 1968)

Ernie Sachs, 27, Captain, Medium Helicopter Squadron 362, Marine Air
Group 36, 1st Marine Division (August 1966 to September 1967)

Eugene Keys, 25, SP/4 (E-4), 3/4 25th Infantry Division (February 1966
to February 1967)

Franklin Shepard, 23, S. Sgt. (E-6), 5/60, 9th Infantry Division
(March 1968 to August 1969)

Fred Bernath, 26, 1st Lt., 101st MP Co., 101st Airborne Division
(December 1968 to October 1969)

Fred Nienke, 21, Sgt. (E-5), "D" Co., 1st Bn., 5th Mor. Reg., 1st
Marine Division (July 1967 to February 1968); 1st Prov. Rifle Co., Mag
36, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st Marine Div. (January 1969 to August 1969)

Gary Keyes, 22, SP/4, "E" Troop, 1st Cav. Reg., 11th Brigade, Americal
Division (April 1969 to March 1970)

Gordon Stewart, 20, Sgt. (E-5), "H" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Div. (September 1968 to September 1969)

Jack Bronaugh, 21, Pvt. (E-1), "E" Btry. 213, 2nd Bn., 27 Marine Reg.;
H & S Bn., 7th Marine POW Compound; 1st Bn., 5th Marine Regiment;
MAC-11, H & MS-11, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st Marine Division (February
1968 to October 1969)

Jack Smith, 27, S/Sgt. (E-6), HQ Battery, 12th Marine Reg., 3rd Marine
Division (January 1969 to December 1969)

James Duffy, 23, SP/5 (E-5), 228 Avn. Bn., 1st Air Cav. Div. (February
1967 to April 1968)

Jamie Henry, 23, Sgt., 1/35 Inf., 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division
(August 1967 to August 1968)

James Mackay, 20, Sgt. (E-5), HHQ 3rd Brigade, 9th Inf. Div. (October
1968 to August 1970)

James Umenhofer, SP/4 (E-4), 2/501, 101st Airborne Division (November
1969 to October 1970)

Jim Weber, 24, Sgt. (E-5), "A" Co., 1/6 and 1/46, 198 LIB, Americal
Division (November 1967 to November 1968)

Joe Bangert, 22, Sgt. (E-5), VMO-6, PMAG-39, 1st Marine Air Wing, 1st
Marine Division (October 1968 to October 1969)

Joe Galbally, 23, SP/4 (E-4), 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (October
1967 to April 1968)

John Beitzel, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 4/21, 11th Brigade, Americal Division
(January 1969 to January 1970)

John Birch, 24, Cpl. (E-4), "B" Co., 3rd Shore Party Bn., 4th Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (May 1965 to August 1966)

John Hartner, 26, Sgt. (E-5), H & HD 3rd Brigade, H & HD 2nd Brigade,
4th Infantry Division (November 1969 to August 1970)

John Henry, 26, SP/4, 2/60, 1/11 Artillery, 9th Infantry Division
(March 1968 to February 1969)

John Lytle, 24, SP/4 (E-4), "E" Co., 6/15 Arty., 1st Infantry Division
(August 1967 to March 1969)

John Mallory, 24, Captain, 1st Sq., 11th Arm. Cav. Reg., 1st Air Cav.
Division (May 1969 to May 1970)

Kenneth Campbell, 21, Cpl. (E-4), "A" Btry., 1st Bn., 11th Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Div., scouted for "B" Co., 1st Bn., 1st Marine
Regiment, 1st Marine Division (February 1968 to March 1969)

Kenneth Ruth, 26, (E-4), HHQ Co., 2/12 Air Cav. Reg., 1st Air Cav.
Div. (February 1966 to February 1967)

Kevin Byrne, 21, Sgt. (E-5), 42nd Scout Dog, 1st Brigade, 101st
Airborne Division (November 1968 to November 1969)

Kevin Delay, 20, Cpl., H & S Co., 3rd Bn., 1st Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (October 1969 to March 1970)

Larry Brooks, 21, Pfc., 2nd Bn., 7th Marine Reg., 1st Marine Division
(July 1969 to January 1970)

Larry Craig, 29, SP/4, Public Information Office, 25th Infantry
Division (1966 to 1967)

Mark Lenix, 24, 1st Lt., 1/11th Arty. and 2/39 Infantry, 9th Infantry
Division (1968 to 1969)

Mike Nakayamo, 1st Bn., 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division

Michael Damron, 24, Pvt. (E-1), "B" Co., 3rd Tank Bn., 3rd Marine
Reg., 3rd Marine Division (September 1966 to October 1967)

Michael Erard, 29, SP/5 (E-5), 3/503, 173rd Airborne Brigade (April
1969 to March 1970)

Michael Farrell, 24, SP/4 (E-4), "A" Co., 2/60, 9th Infantry Division
(January 1967 to January 1968)

Michael Kenny, 20, 2nd Bn., 26th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division

Michael Miziaszek, 22, SP/4 (E-4), 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne
Division, FSSE (December 1968 to January 1970)

Michael McCusker, 29, (2) Sgt. (E-5), Public Information Office, 1st
Marine Division (1966 to 1967)

Murphy Lloyd, 27, (2) Sgt. (E-5), "D" Co., 4th Bn., 173rd Airborne
Brigade (February 1967 to February 1968)

Nathan Hale, 23, SP/5, M.I. Detachment, 198 L.I.B., Americal Division
(December 1967 to December 1968)

Orville Carey, 1st Logistics Command

Patrick Ostrenga, "D" Co., 25th Infantry Division (February to
December)

Paul Olimpieri, 23, Cpl. (E-4), "D" Co., 1st Bn., 5th Marine Regiment,
1st Marine Division (1967-1968)

Paul Williams, 24, L/Cpl. (E-3), "A" Btry., 1st Bn., 12th Marine
Regiment, 3rd Marine Division (May 1966 to May 1967)

Robert Clark, 22, L/Cpl. (E-3), "H&S" Co. & "G" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th
Marine Reg., 3rd Marine Division (May 1969 to May 1970)

Robert S. Craig, 23, Pfc. (E-2), 2nd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (August 1966 to December 1967)

Robert Kruch, 25, Pfc. (E-3), 3/21, 196 LIB, Americal Division

Robert McConnachie, 22, Sgt. (E-5), 2/28th, 1st Infantry (October 1967
to October 1968)

Robert Wiktorski, 22, SP/4 (E-4), "C" Co., 2/12 Air Cav. Reg., 1st Air
Cav. Div. (May 1968 to May 1969)

Ronald Palosaari, 23, SP/4, 1/6, 198 LIB, Americal Division (1967 to
1968)

Ron Podlaski, 24, Sgt. (E-5), 5th Special Forces Group (April 1968 to
April 1969)

Ron Newton, 24, Pfc. (E-3), 3rd Brigade, HHQ Co., 704 Maintenance Bn.,
4th Infantry Division (July 1966 to June 1967)

Russell Kogut, 22, WO-1, 155 Assault Helicopter Co. (May 1968 to March
1969)

Sam Bunge, 1st Lt., "B" Co., 3/187, 101st Airborne Division (July 1968
to June 1969)

Sam Schorr, SP/4 (E-4), 86th Combat Engineers (September 1966 to
September 1967)

Scott Camile, 24, Sgt. (E-5), 1st Bn., 11th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division

Scott Moore, 26, 1st Lt., 2/39th, 9th Infantry Division (1968 to 1969)

Sean Newton, 24, L/Cpl. (E-3), 3rd Bn., 7th Marine Reg., 1st Marine
Division (February 1966 to December 1966); "D" Co., 1/26, 3rd Combined
Action Group, 3rd Marine Div. (August 1967 to August 1968)

Steve Pitkin, 20, SP/4, "C" Co., 2/239, 9th Infantry Division (May
1969 to July 1969)

Steve Noetzel, 31, SP/4, 5th Special Forces Group Augmentation (May
1963 to May 1964)

Steve Rose, 26, U.S.N. Corpsmen (E-5), HQ Bn., 4th Marine Reg., 3rd
Marine Division (December 1966 to December 1967)

Ted Eckert, 21, Sgt. (E-5), MAG-16; Support Group-17, 1st Marine Air
Wing, 1st Marine Division (July 1969 to August 1970)

Thomas Heidtman, 26, Pfc. (E-3), 3rd Bn., 5th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division (October 1966 to November 1967)

Timon Hagelin, 21, SP/4 (E-4), Graves Registration Platoon, 243 Field
Serv. Co., 1st Logistics Command (August 1968 to August 1969)

Vernon Shibla, 27, SP/4, Public Information Office, 25th Infantry
Division (1966 to 1967)

Walter Hendrickson, 22, Pfc (E-2), "F" Co., 2nd Bn., 9th Marine
Regiment, 3rd Marine Division (November 1968 to April 1969)

William Bezanson, 24, Pfc., 4/3, 11th Brigade, Americal Division and
123rd Aviation Bn. (1967 to 1968)

William Hatton, 23, Cpl. (E-4), Engineer Mn. Plt., FLSG Bravo, 3rd
Marine Div. (October 1968 to September 1969)

William Rice, 21, SP/4, 3/47th and HQ, 3rd Brigade, 9th Infantry
Division (January 1969 to January 1970)


Personally, I find Bangert's story rather hard to believe. But if
in 1971 I had heard a similar story about the VC, I would not have
doubted it for a minute.

--

FF