Book Recommendations

[John Kettler]

Childress,

Your point about Sicily and Italy being FO paradise was neatly encapsulated in Mauldin's "Up Front' when Willie and Joe finally get to high ground and one asks the the other while peering at the long uphill path they took to get there "You mean we was there and they was here?"

Wish I could remember who summed up World War II on the ground as being nothing but seizing one elevation after another so the FOs could see into enemy territory to bring fires down. I believe an example was given from North Africa in which an attack was mounted to seize "key terrain" a whole three meters above the surrounding area! Such is the military value of high ground.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

For those of you who doubt the importance of Naval Gunfire Support to combat operations in Sicily and Italy, I suggest you read and grok this. It's taken from a Command & Staff School paper called Keeping The "Gunfire" In Naval Gunfire Support

AUTHOR LCdr. Mark C. Kelsey, USN

Do you have a couple of D cells jammed up your butt, or something? You're like the energizer bunny of non-sequiturs.

So, the article you posted. A navy guy writing a paper about how important NGS was. REALLY? What's next - a paper from fat chicks about how "big bones" are "normal"?

No, wait - I know! A paper from a osteopath about how totally valid homeopathy is as a treatment for stage III lukemia! That'd be totally credible!

[John Kettler]

JonS,

You bitch and moan when I talk about things that discomfit and upset you, and now you're upset when I put out material dead on topic. Worse, you've developed a disturbing interest in my butt! Positive interactions with you seem to be all but impossible, and it seems to be a conscious choice by you. One made over and over again.

You're forever kvetching about strawman arguments, fallacious reasoning and more, but when I present an ironclad case, using evidence from both sides, you either can't or won't acknowledge the contribution by me, instead attacking me.

The case for/against guns on modern Navy warships is no means as cut and dried as you'd like to make it out to be. If you know your military history, you know that guns were done away with elsewhere before, and their absence cost us dearly in what we were assured was the "Missile Era." Remember Vietnam and the MiGs with missiles AND guns? Oops!

At one time, there was serious consideration given to the so-called "Arsenal Ship," a gigantic assemblage of Vertical Launcher Systems (VLS) with a hull wrapped around it. This was supposed to do ALL the main surface Navy missions, while having no gun other than a few Phalanx type weapons. The Arsenal Ship is gone, and the Navy's new destroyers, the DDG-51 ARLEIGH BURKEs, have VLS systems AND a gun, but it's 155mm not 8"/203 mm. They have guns (high ROF, long ranged ones at that, with smart projectiles) because somebody went back and studied military history, then mounted a persuasive case. These papers form part of that argument. There is a lot of meat here, not just background reading, but considerable grog stuff which scenario designers can use and BFC may wish to incorporate at some point.

The constant personnel churn in the military is the bane of institutional memory, which is why we have had to relearn, in considerable blood, the value of an externally mounted phone when infantry works with tanks. I can give plenty of other examples.

I don't like your bully tactics, and neither did the CEO of NARCEL the other night, but I can deal with you. My concern is that your intimidation tactics may interfere with the transfer of useful information to others here because your constant slamming of me in a sense "taints" the information. The information needs to be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof. I believe your constant need to belittle me disinclines people to look at the information at all, let alone with an open mind. This is a disservice to all of us. You're capable of better. When will that side of you be given rein, if ever?

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

I guess he is wondering who you think is doubting the importance of naval gunfire in Sicily. There has been enough stuff written that makes it pretty clear how important it was stopping the HG divison that it seems kind of blindingly obvious.

Now Normandy, yeah there is doubt about the preliminary bombardment, but certainly the destroyer fire was a key factor in getting off Omaha beach.

Your post did appear to be pointed directly at his comment that NGS was not in itself the sole determinant in the fighting in Anzio and Salerno. So you mis understood his post and proceeded to bombard him with what are really irrelevant links to one part of what he posted.

Going from this

This is where Atkinson really comes up short as a writer, I think. He tells a ripping yarn, but he tends to go long on sensationalism, and also simplifies things to accentuate points he want's to make. There was some really hard fighting at both Anzio and Salerno, but I don't think either was "most likely" to end in debacle, and neither was solely dependant on naval gunfire for their survival.

to this

For those of you who doubt the importance of Naval Gunfire Support to combat operations in Sicily and Italy, I suggest you read and grok this. It's taken from a Command & Staff School paper called Keeping The "Gunfire" In Naval Gunfire Support

Regards,

John Kettler

and to end up ... wait? what the f**K, how did we get here?

The case for/against guns on modern Navy warships is no means as cut and dried as you'd like to make it out to be. If you know your military history, you know that guns were done away with elsewhere before, and their absence cost us dearly in what we were assured was the "Missile Era." Remember Vietnam and the MiGs with missiles AND guns? Oops!

At one time, there was serious consideration given to the so-called "Arsenal Ship," a gigantic assemblage of Vertical Launcher Systems (VLS) with a hull wrapped around it. This was supposed to do ALL the main surface Navy missions, while having no gun other than a few Phalanx type weapons. The Arsenal Ship is gone, and the Navy's new destroyers, the DDG-51 ARLEIGH BURKEs, have VLS systems AND a gun, but it's 155mm not 8"/203 mm. They have guns (high ROF, long ranged ones at that, with smart projectiles) because somebody went back and studied military history, then mounted a persuasive case. These papers form part of that argument. There is a lot of meat here, not just background reading, but considerable grog stuff which scenario designers can use and BFC may wish to incorporate at some point.

The constant personnel churn in the military is the bane of institutional memory, which is why we have had to relearn, in considerable blood, the value of an externally mounted phone when infantry works with tanks. I can give plenty of other examples.

Note yes it is clear you can give plenty of examples. Problem is not one of them is actually relevant to his point. Why do you keep harassing him like this?

[sburke]

My concern is that your intimidation tactics may interfere with the transfer of useful information to others here because your constant slamming of me in a sense "taints" the information. The information needs to be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof. I believe your constant need to belittle me disinclines people to look at the information at all, let alone with an open mind.

Regards,

John Kettler

And you can relax. The taint in the information we sense isn't coming from JonS and it has been evaluated on it's merit.

For ex- from a post of yours earlier this evening about some disappearing Carrier group.

Steiner14,

I can also tell you the carrier skipper got a letter of reprimand for "unauthorized activation of a classified device."

Regards,

John Kettler

Really? The Capt got a "letter of reprimand" for activating a super secret device in front of several Russian Intelligence ships. They get worse than that for running aground. Something is certainly tainted here.

[Chek]

Have read the Sicily bit in Atkinsons The Day of Battle.Does seem more like a newspaper article,enjoyable all the same.I do like how he does make a point of mentioning the suffering of the civilians,the jam in the sandwich so to speak.

[MikeyD]

Having read the "CM 2.0 rip-off" thread, may I suggest the book:

"The Clinical and Forensic Assessment of Psychopathy: A Practitioner's Guide" by Carl B. Gacono. :p

[John Kettler]

sburke,

There are ways of raising an issue without his leaping at me, fangs bared like the Vicious Rabbit in the Monty Python film. The "tone" screams nasty and intent to belittle and demean. The Arsenal Ship you're so on about constituted argument by analogy, an accepted rhetorical practice for several millennia. As for the carrier captain, that was the end of his Navy career, even during the Cold War. He would never again be promoted. Generally, carrier command is a key milestone on the path to making admiral. So, you simply don't understand the impact of a letter of reprimand can have.

Not everyone knows what we do about the effectiveness of NGS in World War II. My brother has a photocopy of the Weller/FMC study and considers it one of the jewels of his extensive naval warfare library. His credits include Harpoon, Computer Harpoon, South Atlantic Battles (selected by the Naval War College as a textbook), "Fear God And Dread Nought," Rising Sun and now, Steel Typhoon (the last two covering the first and second halves of the War in the Pacific). He knows what's worthwhile and what isn't when it comes to this stuff, having invested cubic hours in exhaustive research, scenario development and testing.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

What he said:

sburke,

There are ways of raising an issue without his leaping at me, fangs bared like the Vicious Rabbit in the Monty Python film. The "tone" screams nasty and intent to belittle and . . . .

Regards,

John Kettler

What I heard:

Blah blah blah Rusty Blah blah blah blah Rusty blah blah blah

While I can't say I am nearly as offended as JonS at the snake oil blog I don't for a moment consider you a reputable participant on this forum. Why you ask? Is it because you just make all this stuff up? Actually no, that isn't it at all. What bothers me is the level of disrespect you show by making it up so poorly. Do you care even a little bit about how your audience is entertained?

What do you mean you ask? Well here is your previous post. I have taken the liberty to edit it for you like an advisor might to try and show you how poorly it is done.

Steiner14,

During my military aerospace days, we had someone with a "sponsor"

(not sure why the use of quotes here like something in a crappy b rated movie, it sounds like you have a special source but since you never provide an actual bit of verifiable data, it is simply needless hype)

in the Science & Technology side of the CIA (met the sponsor myself), thus had a back channel conduit for the real threat data, not the ....

Again nothing verifiable

It was through our "Deep Throat"

repeat again borrowing from Watergate this time but still nothing verifiable. What trying to have a real conspiracy somehow lend credence to yours by borrowing characters? Almost like Plagarism.

I learned of the operational use of this ship disappearance technology during the Cold War. An entire carrier battle group abruptly vanished while under highly intrusive, dangerous surveillance

Sounds good, but what the heck is "dangerous surveillance". You could at least suggest a near ramming incident and how about a date I mean suggesting something that happened somewhere over a 40+ year period?

by multiple Russian intelligence ships. The resulting Russian reaction was "like someone had stomped an anthill," according to our guy

Again no name nothing verifiable

Everything which could put to sea or be made to fly did so in an all-out effort to find the missing nuclear strike platform. The missing carrier group was later found "somewhere near Antarctica."

Not sure why you felt the need for quotes there either like there was some significant place near Antarctica you wanted to imply. I mean after all what is "near Antarctica" other than Antarctica? And that tale there smacks like you lifted it right out of the The Hunt for Red October.

This incident was obliquely mentioned in a well-regarded open source book on the U.S. Intelligence community

which you conveniently neglect to name cause everyone knows it can't really be a good conspiracy theory unless you look like you have some hidden secret info. You couldn't very well tell us you heard it from some drunken, stoned 3rd cousin of a guy who knows a custodian at the Pentagon now could you? Or that you simply made it up. Remove the open source, it removes any reason why you couldn't name it other than it doesn't exist.

Decades later

(wait, what the f**k did you just do to the timeline? "Do I need to keep this s**t straight.. hmm let's see I said sometime during the cold war, that gives me plenty of wiggle room, but when did Russian intelligence ships first start getting aggressive with US carrier groups.. hmm that might limit my time frame and I said decades later so either I found out recently or oh gawd it is so hard to keep this straight when you are making it up on the fly."

, thanks to my superb sources

(again I'll figure out names at some point)

, I have independently confirmed

(somehow - note to self, make up independent confirmation story)

a) the incident, the presence of the technology in certain Navy aircraft as well as ships

"certain Navy aircraft?" Sorry poor writing style, very poor

, the name of the carrier

That should be easy there haven't been that many..oh crap though again no name. "With 5000 drunken sailors hitting port looking for a good time how do I explain none of them EVER having said they suddenly appeared in Antarctica from oh wait where did they go from.. hell they might have been near Antarctica to start - note to self, go back and add something about the North Atlantic"

whose skipper hit a certain highly classified button

So secret only every friggin sailor who goes on the bridge would have seen it, and even what the button's called. Two letters. "In honor of this author. "F-U"

Okay I made that last bit up, it just fits better with the level of disrespect you are already showing your audience. It might even go over well with the punk crowd.

I can also tell you the carrier skipper got a letter of reprimand for "unauthorized activation of a classified device."

okay that last bit is just too friggin stupid, the Capt got a "letter of reprimand" for activating a super secret device in front of several Russian Intelligence ships - oh c'mon now man this is what I mean by lazy. How about this. The Cap't became the first American spirited away and imprisoned in Gitmo starting a long history of secret detentions. See how hard is that, much more friggin believeable.

And yet after all that you can't even provide a date?

I can produce the same sorts of evidence

pretty easy cause I haven't actually provided anything yet, not a single bit of fact that you could actually check, isn't this great!

for lots of other unusual things, too, including the Haunebu

okay I am running out of ideas so I'll just grab some others, like who the hell is going to sue me LOL

which has occasioned so much derision. Given sufficient time and focus, I can give you extensive detail on all the key aspects of the craft, who built them, how many, who tested them, underlying technologies and who was involved with those.

"Give me a bit though cause it is really hard to make some of this s**t up, really you have no idea!"

All that is for naught, though, if you or whoever examines the data

(assuming I ever create any. That is expecting a bit much I mean after all I haven't even been able to even make up a half decent story line. I always wanted to write fiction, but all my professor ever said was "tripe, christ can't you do any better than this? Perhaps you should stick to cleaning the restrooms")

can't or won't accept it. I ought to know, for I spent cubic hours

cubic hours? where the f**k did that come from? but hey that sounds really cool and scientific like!

trying to bring my brilliant

(brilliant? and yet he couldn't understand a theory we should have had from Maxwell, am I contradicting myself again, oh whatever)

electronics engineer father (retired as a Senior Scientist at Hughes) up to speed on what to him was scientific heresy (the full electromagnetic (EM) theory we should've had since Maxwell) and to the Russians old hat, as clearly proven in their physics journals.

(hmm am I saying all the Russians are smarter than my brilliant dad? That would make them .. umm uber brilliant?)

blah blah blah blah

I have talked to people who guarded recovered UFOs at Edwards AFB, who were directly involved in antigravity technology development, who were involved in Cover & Deception ops for UFO recoveries. I have personally heard Los Angeles Police Department's former top undercover narcotics officer, Michael Ruppert, separately and independently confirm multiple accounts I'd heard of the Bush/Zapata Oil connection to narcotrafficking and black programs. I've talked to people who've been on the MagLev network that girdles the country's black program establishment (the same network described in Sauder's pioneering UNDERGROUND TUNNELS) and have seen the Subterrene nuclear powered tunneler in action. The cost of those tunnels would give most of you instant heart attacks--if you were able to even get your head around the number. Rendered me temporarily

(unfortunately)

speechless! This is a tiny sample of what I know and how I know it

and yet I can't seem to name anyone other than some LA cop and "personally heard" could simply mean I heard him interviewed on a radio - see how easy it is to make it look like I have some special secret handshake access?

blah blah blah

What I can't provide in discussions such as these are a) most of the information at my disposal

As Church lady would say- Isn't that convenient!! Problem is it isn't "most" it is any. There isn't one single iota of fact presented that anyone could look up. Not one. I mean geez you could make a little more effort at pretending. Throw in some ranks, maybe some initials, a character defect anything at all to make them appear they just might be real.

and time for the readers of same to properly integrate it, never mind fit it into any readily relatable context.

Intergrate what? What did you actually say other than a bunch of completely unsubstantiated BS..how are you gonna make money from this??!

It's simply too little to grasp, and I assure you, it's even hard for my sensitive sources

Okay again my edit, but it really is more appropriate.

to deal with. Understandable!

Regards,

John Kettler

Some advice John, get a ghostwriter or take a literature class. This isn't even good pulp fiction, you don't even have a romance story.

You are welcome.

[sburke]

sburke,

He knows what's worthwhile and what isn't when it comes to this stuff, having invested cubic hours in exhaustive research, scenario development and testing.

Regards,

John Kettler

by the way you may want to stop using that, or figure out how to use it correctly.

http://www.unitconversion.org/flow/cubic-meter-per-hour-conversion.html

[mjkerner]

Lol, don't teach him how to do it! Conspiracy buffs never seem to see how ridiculous their "arguments" are, hence they are so much more enjoyable.

By the way, this was the funniest part. I'm a big Gary Larson/Far Side fan:

What I heard:

Blah blah blah Rusty Blah blah blah blah Rusty blah blah blah

[Childress]

Childress,

Wish I could remember who summed up World War II on the ground as being nothing but seizing one elevation after another so the FOs could see into enemy territory to bring fires down.

Yes, that's what I brought away from the book: Italy was a war of dueling Forward Observers. One wonders if that will make a compelling game. Probably. Also, do the ptruppen tire faster when moving up slope? Exhaustion is a major theme. Inquiring minds....

[sburke]

Well I am still not very far into September Hope, but I've already developed this irritation factor. I like the writing style and I think it has a somewhat better balanced perspective on development of MG as a plan.

The irritation factor I am getting is from the writer's constant harping on the super Brave General Gavin. Now I don't doubt for a second he was. However what is creeping in at the bag of my mind (because the book has already pointed it out several times) is his complete failure to appoint a second in command. Maybe the book has it wrong and you guys will tell me "well of course he didn't it is automatically (fill in name here)."

I suspect the book isn't that hopless though and I can't help but feel that looks like an incredibly bad sign of poor preparation. I mean you are jumping out of a friggin plane!

As a sign of what can be the result the book refers to the confusion and paralysis generated in the 1st British Airborne amongst the regimental commanders and the posturing for authority when they lost contact with their commanding officer. Can't say I recall reading anything critiquing that. So I am curious on two points. Was that true about the 1st Airborne and did Gavin really neglect to designate a replacement.

So anyway I am just past the point where the first attempt to take the bridge failed and Gavin is pulling his men back to defend the landing zones. So far the book has cleared Gavin of any responsibility for not grabbing the Nijmegen bridge. First because the objectives set for the 82nd were simply too great to be accomplished, second because his officers apparently ignored his specific orders not to go through the city and third because the German forces rushed to defend the bridge were simply superior to what he could commit until the landing zone was clear for the glider drop scheduled.

Still a long way to go yet to form a solid opinion.

[JonS]

As a sign of what can be the result the book refers to the confusion and paralysis generated in the 1st British Airborne amongst the regimental commanders and the posturing for authority when they lost contact with their commanding officer. Can't say I recall reading anything critiquing that. So I am curious on two points. Was that true about the 1st Airborne and did Gavin really neglect to designate a replacement.

Dunno about Gavin but that is (sort of) true about 1 AB Div.

Urquhart was the Div Comd. Lathbury had 1st Parachute Bde, Hicks had 1st Airlanding Bde, and Hackett had 4th Parachute Bde.

Urquhart, Lathbury and Hicks all landed on D-Day, while Hackett came in on D+1.

Urquhart had designated Hicks to be the 2nd in the chain of command, which made a lot of sense. Hicks was on the ground from the beginning, and his bde was tasked with securing the LZs and DZs for subsequent landings. Therefore he and his bde would be in the most stable position, so if (when) anything went pear-shaped he'd be in the best position to take over and carry on with the plan. Lathbury would be too busy with the fight in the town (also the most likely place for things to go wrong), while Hackett would still be in the UK.

However, strictly speaking, Hackett had seniority over Hicks by virtue of being promoted earlier.

Anyway, sure enough, things went pear shaped, and Hicks took over. Just before the arrival of 4th Bde on D+1 Hicks decided to send one of his own bns (2 S STAFFS) forward into Arnhem, and intended to replace it with one of Hacketts bns when they arrived on the second lift.

This is where the bickering and posturing started. Hackett was peeved that one of his bns had been removed from his command on landing, and also felt that since he was senior he should take over the div. Hicks told Hackett to jam it, he (Hicks) was in charge as stipulated in the OpOrd. And that's pretty much where it ended. Hackett did as he was told, and went off to try and break through to Frost at the bridge, while Hicks carried on commanding the Div until Urquhart returned.

The confusion and paralysis was mostly due to the almost total failure of radio comms. With the div spread out over an area roughly 10km x 5km and no effective comms, battalions and companys just sort-of acted on their own initiative and headed towards the bridge (mission orders!). But the Germans were able to throw together a blocking line, albeit very flimsy, which stymied this uncoordinated advance. If the bns had been in touch with their companies, and with each other, and with their bde commanders, and with division, then someone (Urquhart? Hicks? Lathbury?) would have been able to make sense of what was going one, make sense of what and where the enemy were, and develop a plan to concentrate in time and space in order to break through. But they couldn't talk to each other, so that never happened. Instead what you got was 9 or 10 separate company groups of about 1-200 men each, independently working their way forward. With groups this small, the flimsy initial German blocking forces were sufficient to fend them off.

[sburke]

Thanks, very interesting and not quite as bad as the book implied. I knew about the comms issues, not about Hacket getting peeved.

[Broadsword56]

Just finished Gavin's "On to Berlin" the other day, as it happens.

In part he blames Browning..

"[On Sept. 14 during the planning] General Browning particularly directed me not to attempt the seizure of the Nijmegen Bridge until all other missions had been successfully accomplished and the Groesbeek/Berg-en-Dal high ground was firmly in our hands." (p. 174)

But then he adds..

"I couldn't have agreed more. but I was deeply troubled by the possibility of failing to accomplish some of our objectives."

He goes on to summarize how his units would be spread over 25 miles, fighting simultaneous major battles in various places, while having to secure and keep open the drop zones.

"On the other hand, if I could possibly spare a battalion, I knew I had to commit it to the Nijmegen Bridge as quickly as I could send it in that direction."

Also, Gavin says the planning was flawed in that it assigned the bridge to the 508th, when in hindsight it actually it was the 504th that was in a better position to send a battalion to the bridge on the night of the 17th, though no one realized it at the time.

Gavin recounts the late and halting night advance of the 1/508, and the various mishaps that delayed them en route (a dark night, a late start, and they were supposed to go overland but instead got misled by a Dutch civilian into taking a route through a built-up area where they got delayed by skirmishes) and blames orders from the regiment that told the battalion to halt when they reached the traffic circle, which gave the Germans too much time to reinforce the south end of the bridge.

[sburke]

Just finished Gavin's "On to Berlin" the other day, as it happens.

In part he blames Browning..

"[On Sept. 14 during the planning] General Browning particularly directed me not to attempt the seizure of the Nijmegen Bridge until all other missions had been successfully accomplished and the Groesbeek/Berg-en-Dal high ground was firmly in our hands." (p. 174)

But then he adds..

"I couldn't have agreed more. but I was deeply troubled by the possibility of failing to accomplish some of our objectives."

He goes on to summarize how his units would be spread over 25 miles, fighting simultaneous major battles in various places, while having to secure and keep open the drop zones.

"On the other hand, if I could possibly spare a battalion, I knew I had to commit it to the Nijmegen Bridge as quickly as I could send it in that direction."

Also, Gavin says the planning was flawed in that it assigned the bridge to the 508th, when in hindsight it actually it was the 504th that was in a better position to send a battalion to the bridge on the night of the 17th, though no one realized it at the time.

Gavin recounts the late and halting night advance of the 1/508, and the various mishaps that delayed them en route (a dark night, a late start, and they were supposed to go overland but instead got misled by a Dutch civilian into taking a route through a built-up area where they got delayed by skirmishes) and blames orders from the regiment that told the battalion to halt when they reached the traffic circle, which gave the Germans too much time to reinforce the south end of the bridge.

Interesting. Sept Hope actually differs a bit. In this one the Dutch civilian didn't mis lead them, they chose to follow him through town despite orders to the contrary.

I don't recall reading anything about regiment telling them to halt, rather they ran headlong into a growing number of German reinforcements that simply had more firepower.

Interesting to see the variations. How much of that is the confusion of battle we may never know.

[John Kettler]

What he said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

sburke,

There are ways of raising an issue without his leaping at me, fangs bared like the Vicious Rabbit in the Monty Python film. The "tone" screams nasty and intent to belittle and . . . .

Regards,

John Kettler

What I heard:

Blah blah blah Rusty Blah blah blah blah Rusty blah blah blah

Perhaps you need to "wash" out your "ears" then!

While I can't say I am nearly as offended as JonS at the snake oil blog I don't for a moment consider you a reputable participant on this forum.

Deft slam, that. Did you study at the same School of Gitness JonS did?

Why you ask? Is it because you just make all this stuff up? Actually no, that isn't it at all. What bothers me is the level of disrespect you show by making it up so poorly. Do you care even a little bit about how your audience is entertained?

I don't make it up. Truth is vastly stranger and more interesting than fiction. If my audience is entertained, that's a bonus and historically not a problem, but my real function is education, providing the kind of information all but impossible to come by in the mainstream and even much of the alternative media. I've done almost 20 radio/Internet radio interviews, always to tremendous positive response, in some cases, record breaking audiences.

What do you mean you ask? Well here is your previous post. I have taken the liberty to edit it for you like an advisor might to try and show you how poorly it is done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

Steiner14,

During my military aerospace days, we had someone with a "sponsor"

(not sure why the use of quotes here like something in a crappy b rated movie, it sounds like you have a special source but since you never provide an actual bit of verifiable data, it is simply needless hype)

Your issue, not mine. That was how the word was used when the subject came up. I DO have a special source, and since I don't have permission to identify this person, who may or may not still be alive, I deem it wise to not identify this person by name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

in the Science & Technology side of the CIA (met the sponsor myself), thus had a back channel conduit for the real threat data, not the ....

Office of Scientific & Weapons Research, Directorate of Science & Technology, CIA

Again nothing verifiable

What makes you think you could?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

It was through our "Deep Throat"

repeat again borrowing from Watergate this time but still nothing verifiable. What trying to have a real conspiracy somehow lend credence to yours by borrowing characters? Almost like Plagarism.

Would you prefer "Shallow Esophagus" instead? I used what I used because everyone understands the term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

I learned of the operational use of this ship disappearance technology during the Cold War. An entire carrier battle group abruptly vanished while under highly intrusive, dangerous surveillance

Sounds good, but what the heck is "dangerous surveillance". You could at least suggest a near ramming incident and how about a date I mean suggesting something that happened somewhere over a 40+ year period?

"Chicken of the sea," to include cutting across the path of a carrier conducting flight ops, charging into a formation to retrieve some object and doing it in such a way that it posed imminent danger of collision and disrupted formation integrity. Clear enough for you now?

Time was mid 1980s, I believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

by multiple Russian intelligence ships. The resulting Russian reaction was "like someone had stomped an anthill," according to our guy

Do you bitch like this every time a TV anchor or reporter mentions an "anonymous source" or a "senior official, who asked not be be identified" comes up? Bet not! It is a commonplace of global journalism, not just American.

Again no name nothing verifiable

Oh, boo hoo!

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

Everything which could put to sea or be made to fly did so in an all-out effort to find the missing nuclear strike platform. The missing carrier group was later found "somewhere near Antarctica."

Not sure why you felt the need for quotes there either like there was some significant place near Antarctica you wanted to imply. I mean after all what is "near Antarctica" other than Antarctica? And that tale there smacks like you lifted it right out of the The Hunt for Red October.

I don't give a hoot what you believe. I quoted it exactly as it was told me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

This incident was obliquely mentioned in a well-regarded open source book on the U.S. Intelligence community

which you conveniently neglect to name cause everyone knows it can't really be a good conspiracy theory unless you look like you have some hidden secret info. You couldn't very well tell us you heard it from some drunken, stoned 3rd cousin of a guy who knows a custodian at the Pentagon now could you? Or that you simply made it up. Remove the open source, it removes any reason why you couldn't name it other than it doesn't exist.

I "conveniently neglected to name" it, as you wrongly claim, not because it doesn't exist but because it's been decades since I last saw the book and am sure of neither the title nor the author. Besides, most of my library covering that stuff is half a country away and may or may not still exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

Decades later

(wait, what the f**k did you just do to the timeline? "Do I need to keep this s**t straight.. hmm let's see I said sometime during the cold war, that gives me plenty of wiggle room, but when did Russian intelligence ships first start getting aggressive with US carrier groups.. hmm that might limit my time frame and I said decades later so either I found out recently or oh gawd it is so hard to keep this straight when you are making it up on the fly."

You are quite obviously being tendentious. But I'll recap for you. I first heard about the incident in the early 1980s from our guy with OSWR connections. Later on, I a) read an oblique account of the incident in the open source intel book, was told by Al Bielek in 1995 the technology was real and that it was installed on "certain Navy aircraft" (his words), of which the only type he'd admit was the A-6 Intruder and c) recently had all three items separately and independently confirmed to me by a sensitive contact, someone with not just knowledge of the technology but experience, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

, thanks to my superb sources

(again I'll figure out names at some point)

There will be no names given, ever, unless I'm first given explicit permission. Lives are at stake, but you are so clueless as to think this a game!

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

, I have independently confirmed

(somehow - note to self, make up independent confirmation story)

It's called cross checking. Rumor has it it's accepted research and journalistic practice!

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

a) the incident, the presence of the technology in certain Navy aircraft as well as ships

"certain Navy aircraft?" Sorry poor writing style, very poor

And you've had how many books published? What are your documentary film credits?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

, the name of the carrier

Deliberately not released!

That should be easy there haven't been that many..oh crap though again no name. "With 5000 drunken sailors hitting port looking for a good time how do I explain none of them EVER having said they suddenly appeared in Antarctica from oh wait where did they go from.. hell they might have been near Antarctica to start - note to self, go back and add something about the North Atlantic"

First of all, sailors generally don't know where they are while at sea, unless told via the 1MC (ship's intercom). Second, there are draconian penalties for revealing things they're not supposed to talk about. It starts with "reduction to Seaman Basic and forfeiture of all pay and allowances due or to become due" and goes steeply downhill thereafter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

whose skipper hit a certain highly classified button

Why do you deliberately choose to live in what Rommel so beautifully termed Wolkuckucksheim (Cloud Cuckoo Land)? Have you NEVER heard of security sanitizing an area before visitors are allowed aboard, covering displays/displaying only innocuous data, but even then the visitors are closely guarded? Do you know nothing of special command keys and the like? The average sailor doesn't stand bridge watches to begin with and would simply see a locked down cover over something. If he or she asked, such tendencies would be stopped immediately and with great firmness.

So secret only every friggin sailor who goes on the bridge would have seen it, and even what the button's called. Two letters. "In honor of this author. "F-U"

Okay I made that last bit up, it just fits better with the level of disrespect you are already showing your audience. It might even go over well with the punk crowd.

You, sir, are in ABSOLUTELY NO position to lecture me on respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

I can also tell you the carrier skipper got a letter of reprimand for "unauthorized activation of a classified device."

okay that last bit is just too friggin stupid, the Capt got a "letter of reprimand" for activating a super secret device in front of several Russian Intelligence ships - oh c'mon now man this is what I mean by lazy. How about this. The Cap't became the first American spirited away and imprisoned in Gitmo starting a long history of secret detentions. See how hard is that, much more friggin believeable.

FYI, there ARE secret detention centers and classified mental institutions American officers have been forced into, but this gaffe was solved by basically killing the offender's career. Simple and quiet.

And yet after all that you can't even provide a date?

See above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

I can produce the same sorts of evidence

pretty easy cause I haven't actually provided anything yet, not a single bit of fact that you could actually check, isn't this great!

If you had the right kinds of contacts, knew the right questions to ask and how to ask them, then you could. Isn't that great?

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

for lots of other unusual things, too, including the Haunebu

okay I am running out of ideas so I'll just grab some others, like who the hell is going to sue me LOL

Do stop projecting your defects and issues on me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

which has occasioned so much derision. Given sufficient time and focus, I can give you extensive detail on all the key aspects of the craft, who built them, how many, who tested them, underlying technologies and who was involved with those.

"Give me a bit though cause it is really hard to make some of this s**t up, really you have no idea!"

I don't have to make this stuff up. It's there for those with the courage to look at it, the willingness to question what they believed before and the knowledge to understand what's being said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

All that is for naught, though, if you or whoever examines the data

(assuming I ever create any. That is expecting a bit much I mean after all I haven't even been able to even make up a half decent story line. I always wanted to write fiction, but all my professor ever said was "tripe, christ can't you do any better than this? Perhaps you should stick to cleaning the restrooms")

Wrong again! I got "A"s in Science Fiction classes in both high school and college.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

can't or won't accept it. I ought to know, for I spent cubic hours

cubic hours? where the f**k did that come from? but hey that sounds really cool and scientific like!

Figure of speech. Usage example at 4/21/01 here.

https://www.msu.edu/~karjalae/april01.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

trying to bring my brilliant

(brilliant? and yet he couldn't understand a theory we should have had from Maxwell, am I contradicting myself again, oh whatever)

Hardly. Again you're revealing your ignorance! James Clerk Maxwell came up with a full EM theory in the 1700s. It featured very complex terms called quaternions, through which action at a distance, adding and subtracting energy and much more became possible. When Maxwell died, his full EM theory was simplified by Oliver Heaviside (of Heaviside Layer fame) and someone else I can't recall. It was done for ease of calculation, but it gutted Maxwell's EM theory, and the gutted theory is taught to this day in electrical engineering courses. Read Bearden! Failing that, read Bearden scalar theory and technology overview (approved by him) here.

http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

electronics engineer father (retired as a Senior Scientist at Hughes) up to speed on what to him was scientific heresy (the full electromagnetic (EM) theory we should've had since Maxwell) and to the Russians old hat, as clearly proven in their physics journals.

(hmm am I saying all the Russians are smarter than my brilliant dad? That would make them .. umm uber brilliant?)

My dad was brilliant--at what he did. That is NOT the same as saying he was in the same league as Petr Kapitsa, especially given Dad's adamant refusal to reexamine what he was taught in engineering school. The Russians were highly motivated to think creatively; no one threatened to kill my dad if he didn't probe the farthest reaches of science.

blah blah blah blah

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

I have talked to people who guarded recovered UFOs at Edwards AFB, who were directly involved in antigravity technology development, who were involved in Cover & Deception ops for UFO recoveries. I have personally heard Los Angeles Police Department's former top undercover narcotics officer, Michael Ruppert, separately and independently confirm multiple accounts I'd heard of the Bush/Zapata Oil connection to narcotrafficking and black programs. I've talked to people who've been on the MagLev network that girdles the country's black program establishment (the same network described in Sauder's pioneering UNDERGROUND TUNNELS) and have seen the Subterrene nuclear powered tunneler in action. The cost of those tunnels would give most of you instant heart attacks--if you were able to even get your head around the number. Rendered me temporarily

(unfortunately)

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

speechless! This is a tiny sample of what I know and how I know it

and yet I can't seem to name anyone other than some LA cop and "personally heard" could simply mean I heard him interviewed on a radio - see how easy it is to make it look like I have some special secret handshake access?

Yet more smear attempts! I've talked to people face to face and in person, sat in on lectures they've given and quizzed them afterwards, visited some in their homes and so on. YOU might try the other approach, but I don't operate that way. I've already explained my policy on sources.

blah blah blah

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

What I can't provide in discussions such as these are a) most of the information at my disposal

As Church lady would say- Isn't that convenient!! Problem is it isn't "most" it is any. There isn't one single iota of fact presented that anyone could look up. Not one. I mean geez you could make a little more effort at pretending. Throw in some ranks, maybe some initials, a character defect anything at all to make them appear they just might be real.

Suggest you do some reading!

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

and time for the readers of same to properly integrate it, never mind fit it into any readily relatable context.

Intergrate what? What did you actually say other than a bunch of completely unsubstantiated BS..how are you gonna make money from this??!

"None so blind... none so deaf.."

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

It's simply too little to grasp, and I assure you, it's even hard for my sensitive sources

Okay again my edit, but it really is more appropriate.

IYNVHO!

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kettler

to deal with. Understandable!

Regards,

John Kettler

Some advice John, get a ghostwriter or take a literature class. This isn't even good pulp fiction, you don't even have a romance story.

Oh, but it is. JonS and sburke--the woodies they have for John Kettler! "They didn't know how to love, but boy, could they stalk!"

Some advice, sburke. You haven't the faintest idea what's really going on, show no interest in learning and willfully choose to stay ignorant--while shooting the messenger. The longer and further you leave your head wedged in what fighter pilots call the up and locked position, the more traumatic it will be when reality as you've known it collapses.

You are welcome.

And so, O Willfully Oblivious One, are you!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

After all these years and thousands of posts you still can't use BB code.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

I tried to preserve the original appearance, but failed signally. Not surprised! The whole day's been this way. I was grateful the thing didn't simply vanish or that I didn't inadvertently obliterate it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

Perhaps you need to "wash" out your "ears" then!

Umm ouch? Geez is that the best you could come up with? Well it explains the poor state of your fiction. and what's with the quotes again? As a literary device you really need to be more restrained and learn how to use them for appropriate affect.

Here a freebie for you. sburke, are you so short of jokes you have to steal Gary Larson's? (yeah I admit, I am nowhere near as funny as that guy)

Deft slam, that. Did you study at the same School of Gitness JonS did?

Better, but you see that wasn't a slam. It was a statement. And to my knowledge JonS never went to school.. ever. He is a total miscreant wandering around picking fights with used car salesman, televangelists and snake oil salesman, but he tells the truth. Also when you ask him something he doesn't barrage you with a mountain of irrelevant unfiltered google excrement and pretend that indicates he is knowledgable. I am still going to run my tanks over his stormtrooper posers though.

Time was mid 1980s, I believe.

Seriously. You can identify the label on the danged button but not the year (much less a specific date)? C'mon now John, Russians were there so they obviously know and an entire Carrier battle group of sailors was there, they should certainly know. You have an inside guy in the CIA and you can't pick up a sailor? I am sure you can pick up a sailor.

the name of the carrier?

Deliberately not released!

Again why? With thousands of people knowing and there only being at most 15 carriers around at a time. Oh yeah wait, because then we could actually verify

WHERE

THEY

WERE

Did you actually read the link you posted on cubic hour? How many pages did you have to flip through in google to find some 11 year old comment in his diary from some student at MSU? Is THAT why it took you so long to post a reply? Really I am sorry. I should never have brought it up, now we've lost time from saving the world.

I won’t be sure if this post makes any sense or not until tomorrow, because I haven’t gotten any sleep in the last 30 cubic hours. (Scholar’s Note: One cubic hour equals time * the Residence Interval (RI) of floods in Arizona * the % hypertextuality—which is almost always 100.) Fortunately, in only 218.7 cubic hours, I will be done with Sweeps Week. That’s a relief, because Sweeps Week is awful waffle.

Hmm I'd actually have suspected that was your diary, but I think you are too old to fit the bill.

John you may actually be a decent guy, but I suspect maybe you just can't or won't filter what you hear. So all the white noise of our world for you becomes critical info. It isn't. Because some college burnout uses some bizarre statement of a cubic hour does not suddenly make it a valid unit of time. For the rest of us, that deluge of unfiltered info eventually becomes really annoying. It's like going over to a radio tuned into nothing but static and cranking it up to full volume. Of course you are gonna get a negative reaction.

Look we could go round and round like this forever, You make outrageous claims, then say you can't provide proof because THOSE pople would be at risk, but somehow I don't see you disappearing. I also see you have a ton of time to sit around on this forum playing a demo copy of CMBN. Does it strike you as odd that this reflects no urgency to worry about the world that is supposedly at risk? Sorry guy, not buying it. Assuming you really knew all this stuff, it is very obviously not urgent and the gov't that so much wants to shut you up still keeps giving you money. Yeah I heard the sob story, but plenty of folks have trouble getting money out of the gov't. That is the nature of bureaucracy.

So back to book reviews.

Edit - kudos on this one, that is actually funny.

Oh, but it is. JonS and sburke--the woodies they have for John Kettler! "They didn't know how to love, but boy, could they stalk!"

[TrailApe]

Once on Salsbury Plain, hanging around in an OP location, waiting for the civilian staff to open up the telephone switchboard and thus allow the fun to start, we noticed some squaddies, one who had a beard. Now they were in the British DPM, but that didn't mean a lot, as quite a few Commonwealth and NATO armies used DPM or something very similair.

Now us being Civilians in Uniform, Weekend Warriors, we were quite nosey, so we bimbled across and had a chat. Turned out they were sailors and were the Navy's equivalent of an FOO team (FIST to our USians).

So to say:-

For those of you who doubt the importance of Naval Gunfire Support to combat operations in Sicily and Italy

is as irrelevant as saying

For those who doubt the importance of xxx Battery to combat operations in Sicily and Italy.

ALL artillery support is a force magnifier and NGS is different from mud based artillery only in that its floating offshore - the shells hit the ground and go bang - the only difference being that 16" naval shells go BANG louder, but arrive less frequently than 25lber or 105mm shells from field artillery.

So why you should intimate that the Jolly Jack Tars have been written out of history any more than - for example - Spike Milligans lot, is the question.

I don't think that anybody who plays CM has any problems with using ANY flavour of artillery, and from reading these forums, most of the community is well read and will fully appreciate the role of artillery in operations, floating or otherwise.

One role that MAY be not as fully appreciated as should be is what we know nowadays as Forward Air Controller. I have read somewhere that the early loss of the FAC in Operation Goodwood had a significantly adverse effect on the operation, especially when the battle moved out from under the umbrella of the guns.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

I read this under a different title, The Path to Victory and didn't think much of it. Caveat emptor YMMV.

Michael

Yeah, weird that with the titles.

What I liked is that Porch treats the whole theater and there is little hero worship. And it´s serious history vs. more the more racy Atkinson book (fun though it is). Maybe Porch oversells the importance of the Mediteranean, but as you say YMMV.

[MengJiaoRedux]

Hello All:

Any good recommendations for reading about Sicily. Could also include the mainland. Nothing too dense preferably.

Thanks in advance,

Gerry

There's Garland's Unknown Soldiers. Garland died recently. I saw his book at a house of a friend of his. It's pretty dense and Garland didn't join the 45th division (157 regiment) until after sicily.

http://unknownsoldiersmemoir.com/

[sburke]

Finally finished up Sept Hope and found it to be a pretty good read. It had the added advantage of delving into some of the actions of the 104th ID in helping to clear the Scheldt. There was also a considerable amount on the commitment of the 82nd and the 101st to "the Island" before their eventual withdrawal into reserve.

As far as the debate on who is responsible, the author's position is unequivocally Eisenhower. It doesn't let Monty (or much of anyone else) off the hook. But the author's position is that Eisenhower needed to be telling Montgomery very specifically to concentrate on the clearing of Antwerp and he did not.

Lot of detail on the fighting by both American Airborne divisions (this is a book specifically about the American units fighting in MG) and has a lot specifically about the bitter fight in Nijmegen. Worth getting and it is available for the Kindle.