Ryder Mystery Expands - Implicates Pentagon in Oklahoma
Updated 5/2000 NEW EVIDENCE! Copyright © 1996, 2000, 2001 H. Michael Sweeney All Rights Reserved Please request permissions before downloading
- The Chain of Evidence...
Portrait of a Terrorist Organization:
The Ryder Truck 'Bomb Factory'
Washington Post Links Image to DARPA
Anatomy of a Disinformation 'Leak'
Evidence Uncovered: DARPA Story Fraudulent
Scientific Image Dating Confirms DARPA Lies
Pilot's Death Linked to Photos
Timothy McVeigh as Patsy, Front Man, Cutout
The New Math and
Image Analysis as ANFO Bomb Factory
Image Analysis as METC Bomb Factory
CIA's METC Bomb Technology Review
New Image Reveals Details, New Questions
to This Web Site
Demand A New FULL Investigation of This Matter with FULL Public Disclosure!
|Anatomy of a Disinformation 'Leak' and Complicity
by the Fourth Estate
The first question has to do with the how and why... the manner in which the DARPA revelation comes to be published in the Washington Post in the first place. It is well known among journalists and investigative writers such as myself that information on classified military and intelligence matters makes its way into the public domain in only three principle ways. Let us compare the Washington Post article carefully against these means and see which shoe comes closest to a fit...
One means is by attempted or actual whistle blowing (sometimes called a 'leak' when done anonymously), as demonstrated perhaps best of all for our purposes by the bomb factory photographs themselves. Someone took those pictures for a reason, and made them available in a manner suggesting all of the chief elements common to a whistle blowing release - anonymity born of fear, claims of specific wrong doing, provision of 'insider' caliber information (photographs) to back up the claims. The DARPA information in the Post is certainly not in this category, and would instead tend to legitimize the images as innocent in meaning, if accurate. But for some reason, mainstream media failed to pick up the story - or even investigate the claims. Why?
Interesting then, despite the fact that many newspapers regularly cite the Post as their 'lead' - that only the Post acted relatively quickly upon the heels of the release of the images themselves. The net result was a story not widely distributed, published only in the geographical area of the nation's Capitol, where one might reasonably presume readership to include Congressional oversight committees and others who's opinions and concerns would be of key importance to DOD, DARPA, and the intelligence community. More so, were wrongdoing in need of covering up. In a similar vein, it is important to note that Leiby neither reprints the image as referenced or provides the Web address where his readers might look and decide for themselves what the importance the matter might really have. Readers who have not seen the images are left in the dark, clueless. Thus the article is clearly not a 'whistle blowing', but comes perhaps closer to a preemptive whistle sucking.
The second means is by investigative journalism, where a news agency or investigative writer elects to dig up the facts as part of an organized investigation. The best known example is perhaps Woodward and Bernstein's coverage and exposure of the Watergate scandal which (did someone say Washington Post, again?) eventually served to politically assassinate Richard Nixon. Yet even this story was driven by leaks through a man obviously from within the intelligence community known only as Deep Throat - a matter I maintain was planned from the outset by the same people who planned and executed JFK, and for largely related reasons.
Thus, I maintain, a Deep Throat was absolutely required in order to provide leaks to achieve the desired political end of 'Tricky Dick' and the Vice President, 'nolo contender' Agnew (who was also undone by leaks of alleged criminality.) These political assassinations put Gerald Ford into power, a nice payoff to the man who sat on the Warren Commission and fed CIA information on the investigation to allow evidence presented to be framed in a way which would help mold conclusions. And in that light, the choice of reporters and newspaper, Bernstein and Woodward of the Post may have been exactly selected as described below in review of how 'leaks' come to be. Consider this carefully, because in this instance, the article by Leiby is clearly not part of an investigative effort. For proofs of these claims, one need only read Mark Lane's remarkable Plausible Denial, which includes what I call 'CIA's Courtroom Confession', a sworn statement by a CIA operative that CIA players from the failed Bay of Pigs Operation killed Kennedy with crossfire.
Such investigative efforts are commonly identified as such by a number of fairly obvious indicators, all of which are absent in this case. Generally, it is a series of ongoing step-wise articles, each taking the reader deeper into the matter. Not the case here. Typically, there is some kind of formal announcement within the article and a description of the basis (typically public accusations or evidence which drives the investigation) and the progress of the investigation. Not so, here. Further, any material evidence offered within such works are offered in illustrated detail along with commentary revealing both source of information and relevance. Leiby instead minimizes such details. Finally, remaining unanswered questions are posed in review of ongoing investigative efforts - what some people might call a 'teaser.' Again, not so, and Leiby elects to omit the most critical informational aspects (about how the Guard information was obtained, the actual dates of the DARPA presence, etc.) of the matter entirely, and fails to ask any obvious follow-on questions such as raised here.
The final source is that of a deliberate 'leak' or other release of information such as a formal press conference or press release. The latter would seem not to be the case, here, since no one else in media seems to have published this information and there is no citation of PR event or document as a source in the article. The 'leak' therefore, deserves some detailed consideration. First of all, a deliberate leak (as opposed to whistle blowing) only happens because it serves the interests of someone within the Agency from which the information comes. One must logically ask why such a leak regarding DARPA might have come to be, because the answer is critical in evaluating the quality and accuracy of the alleged information itself. Clearly, to any legitimate news professional and their editorial managers, this must be the first and utmost concern to the recipient of the leak, along with the need to verify and report the accuracy of the information leaked.
This is absolutely critical because the chief purpose of a leak is to disseminate information or, more commonly, disinformation which will in some useful way discredit some targeted topic, person, agency, or resource of information. Generally, any such purpose is to serve as disinformation. What follows is the definition of disinformation and propaganda from a special report (available for the asking) on Political Control Technology, which lists over 250 terms and technologies, citing patents and other government documents:
Disinformation aka Propaganda: The art of disseminating lies, half-truths, and political rhetoric, and applying assorted tactics to mislead, confuse, or misdirect a specific opponent or the public at large, or to enhance or destroy the popularity of a given person, group, orSince government leaks are frequently intended to do just that, careful consideration is given to deciding just who would be the best possible candidate for receiving the leaked information. A 'friendly' or 'cooperative' recipient (sometimes called 'pocket reporters') must be found who will not overly question the quality and nature of the material or its true purpose. When the leak involves a news media such as a newspaper, this requires both the reporter/writer and the editor be 'understanding' or 'sympathetic.'
This can mean anything from 'being on the payroll' as an in-place asset (such as is far too common - CIA, as will be shown below, has such assets in almost every major news agency in America) to simply a willingness to grant such a favor in exchange for preferential treatment or access on/to other news stories. It is not at all uncommon for blackmail, intimidation, or outright bribery to be involved in the middle ground between these two extremes. Regardless of why a given media might willingly allow itself to be so manipulated as to mislead its very consumers (you and me, the public they serve) by falsehoods, there is a much larger issue. Simply put, to willingly print a lie is to also deliberately choose to ignore what is obviously a much larger and more important story which the lie must surely be intended to cover up. Any such media pass-through of deliberate disinformational leaks thereby becomes a willing criminal conspirator, and thus, one might reasonably conclude, liable to criminal prosecutions or civil suits where appropriate. At least in a perfect world.
In the article by Leiby, there are two factors which suggest this is exactly what has happened. First understand that the purpose of mentioning the DARPA revelation, as based on context within the article, is clearly meant to paint the picture that the 'Ryder' or 'bomb factory' images could not possibly depict a bomb factory or in any way be related to the bombing, principally because of dating problems. Note this is not actually stated. There is shown no connection between the article topic 'militia' and the image, and no such connection exists, so why was it brought up at all if not this purpose? In point of fact, the author fails to offer the dates and other needed details or clearly state the import of the images as 'bomb factory' as would be common in any investigative mode. The lack of accuracy and detail serves only one useful end - distancing the images (and the military) from the April blast date.
This understated point is another indicator that inclusion of the DARPA material was not due to investigative diligence. Further, based on the lack of useful information within the article about the significance of the images or why it relates to the 'militia' topic, it seems rather unlikely that there would any viable leads which might logically have caused the author to even think to ask the National Guard about the images, or to even seek out information on the image from the Guard in the first place. If the article is about militia distancing themselves from McVeigh, why does the Ryder truck image come into topical play at all? In the second place, there is no logical reason for the Guard or DARPA to release such information about a classified operation under any other circumstance other than an intentional leak for unstated self-serving reasons, a deed for which they had no legal authority. Leiby fails to question this, and for the matter, he fails question the legitimacy of the answer, because if the image were related to OKC, the military would be expected to lie. Where is the investigation in this?
It is common practice in the intelligence community, of which DARPA is a kind of participant as an 'army of scientists and engineers', to remain silent regardless of any outside accusations or point-blank questioning. If it was a DARPA project, a direct inquiry should have resulted in, at best a kind of "We can neither confirm nor deny" kind of statement. In point of fact, the National Guard is ABSOLUTELY NOT AUTHORIZED to release public statements about secret DARPA tests UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. Leiby and the Post editors know this, unless idiots - so why do they pass it off on us? That in itself raises extremely red flags of a disinformational leak. Leiby and his editors, it seems are as color blind as they come. In fact, so blind, there is much else they elected not to see.
The true value of Leiby's DARPA revelations is that it concretely proves the site existed at Camp Gruber as claimed by the photographer, that it involved weapons testing. CIA's METC technology, as I believe represents the more likely bomb used in Oklahoma, could be argued as a weapon in need of testing. The military/DOD was aware of and involved in protecting the METC project and may indeed have been involved in its development, testing, and deployment. The whole DARPA issue increases in relevance when we discover that a DARPA Officer, Lt. Col. John Blitch, was present during the immediate aftermath of the explosion itself, aiding in rescue operations. Blitch is a Robotics expert and does have a plausible reason to have been present. Naturally, any review of this matter ultimately raises the question of just who is the man in the main image seen walking near the car? His identity should not be as hard to discover as it might seem, a matter in works at this time. Given the DARPA ties and presence at the blast site, Blitch is under logical consideration as a candidate.
Of course, skeptics may argue my complaints about Leiby's work are based only on personal suppositions, at best an analysis based chiefly on the lack of information in the article. In defense, Leiby might say he "...did not think them important" details, and, perhaps, he might even tell us he did indeed make the call to the National Guard to ferret out the information from an unwilling source that let it out with a slip of the tongue, or some such plausible explanation. But my response would be why, if the pictures were important enough to guide such an action... and I maintain that the act of attempting to defuse their importance by means of the article as written implies such importance... then these are the questions that must be answered in order to verify even the minimal information Leiby does provide. Thus, we must ask why there is no such informational details- what was the goal if not self-serving agenda, likely borrowed or imposed from some other agency?
In trying to follow up on the missing details which would allow you or me to follow the trail of evidence and make solid observational conclusions that it was not a disinformational leak, I attempted to directly contact Leiby - first to simply to find a copy of his article. But I also wanted to make contact to offer two simple questions. How did he come by the DARPA material, and what was the precise dating offered by the National Guard, if any - and if there was none, why not? Mr. Leiby could not be bothered, however, and I was instead referred by an assistant to the public library to research other news stories for my answers - a purely fruitless pursuit since no other paper picked up the story. I wonder why not, unless it is because it did not want the public at large to go looking for the photographs on the Web.
Direct contact not possible, the questions went unanswered. Without excessively criticizing this turn down, which may have been out of genuine logistical or 'too busy' issues, the unfortunate impression is one of an intent to obscure or stonewalling. How much trouble would it have been to simply provide the dates and indicate the means and point of contact? Not much, unless, of course, that source was a disinformational leak, in which case there would probably be no legitimate or allowable answer, certainly not one you or I would find acceptable.
Thus some clear reasons do exist for doubting the veracity and impugning
the credibility of Leiby's DARPA information, with the attendant suspicions
that the Washington Post has (once more) become a willing coconspirator
in any existing cover up intended by the article. Of much greater import,
if concluded there is disinformation (a lie), we must question both the
official explanation of what the images depict (weapon testing) and why
such disinformation should be necessary in the first place. This "where
there's smoke, there's fire" thinking forces us to find a way to test the
matter further. There are several ways...
|Evidence Uncovered: DARPA Story
a Fraudulent Cover
If any validity can be given the sum total of the DARPA story, then the whole significance and importance of the photographs is rendered moot as far as culpability in the blast is concerned, and Leiby and the Post are thus honored. The reverse is also true. The first test of the matter comes back to several aspects of security. Already stated was the fact that the Guard would not have been authorized to discuss any matter about a secret DARPA test, and we will see how secret, shortly. Additionally, I have had multiple persons with military intelligence backgrounds confirm an interesting fact about weapons testing by the military. There are regulations and law which dictates where such testing can take place. DARPA has apparently not read them...
Specifically, a weapon design of a given technology must be developed and tested at specific sites designed and approved for such testing. It is regulation, and apparently, there is the force of law behind the regulations. That is, DARPA cannot simply run off to the middle of Oklahoma and covertly create an all-new facility to develop or test any weapon. This would seem to make DARPA and the Guard a liar, or at least make DARPA a renegade military unit operating outside of military regulation and Congressional authorization. Neither is a very suitable choice. Yet there are other matters about security which also refute the DARPA cover story as depicted by the Washington Post.
My field investigators tell me that they have located first-hand eye witnesses to two very telling examples of the degree and type of security enforcement put into play at the secret Gruber site. Both are incredible. The first is that often, the entire street running along the site (Central Europe Avenue) was blocked off at key intersections by roadblocks manned by armed Marines. Excuse me? U.S. Marines? DARPA does not rely on Marines. Marines are not trained to be traffic cops or security guards - it is simply not their mission. Camp Gruber does not have or quarter Marines, not even temporarily. Why would anyone import Marines if National Guardsmen were available for such mundane duty, unless it was considered such a secret operation that not even the Guard was to be allowed to participate? One wonders why Marines would establish a perimeter some 750 feet distant from the entrance to the site. Was there a danger of an explosion, perhaps?
The second event involves an effort by a Guardsman to penetrate the wooded area north of the compound specifically to get a closer look at the operation. But he did not successfully make his way through the woods and play spy. Indeed, he was stopped almost immediately after initial penetration. Was he stopped by DARPA authorities? No. Was he stopped by National Guard on guard duty? No. Was he stopped by Marines? No. He was stopped by men in civilian clothes who flashed ID, the description of which brings in yet another mystery agency: DIA -The Defense Intelligence Agency. This is the Department of Defense equivalent to CIA. Like Marines, their mission statement has nothing to do with guarding DARPA projects. Nor does it have to do with developing military technology. And I want to know... if they were legitimately there, why did not not detain and question the Guardsman? Could it be that such an action would have raised a couple of red flags about the excessive security and the players involved?
Further, that they were in civilian clothes tells us they were not waiting in the trees just in case someone came along. Army fatigues would be far more suitable for digging in for long hours of duty on watch, and for concealment. No, this tells us they were dispatched from some place a little more comfortable. Just where is somewhat a mystery, but my guess is that if we had broader photographic evidence we would find several mobile homes or motor homes scattered at strategic points in or near the wooded areas. More important, however, is that this also tells us that, in the absence of guards on duty within the woods itself, that a sophisticated electronic early-warning system was installed into the vegetation. Why would this be necessary?
All of these security measures are well beyond reason, especially when DARPA already has appropriately secure facilities and thus, endless designated and secure military reservation acreage designated for testing. Such security implies that whatever was going on was so secret that not even existing military bases were considered safe for the purpose. That infers that whatever was being worked on was likely not a legitimate military operation or project, one that any traditional military unit commander might become suspicious of, and take actions to investigate, and perhaps stop. It infers that this is a renegade operation, one which might perhaps need deny itself even to the Pentagon, National Security Council, Congress, and the President. Regardless, every aspect of the security efforts involved tells us it was perhaps not even a DARPA project as claimed. I also point out here, that eye witnesses tell us that it was largely a civilian operation, very few actual military personnel seen entering the site. This, too, makes me most suspicious of any DARPA claims. It might have been CIA, DIA, or a combination. I rule out Marines or Guard because they lack the weapon tech and covert ops planing skills.
The DARPA concept is likely a cover story, one perhaps expected to hold water with Leiby's simple one-line explanation. But there are other cracks in the walls which leak evidence of criminal cover up, and which specifically places the operation at the threshold of the bombing itself. If 'DARPA' was out of the area in the Fall of '94 , then someone lied about the photographs, for which spring dating (early April) is claimed. Since both claim dates mutually exclusive of one-another, it behooves us examine the accuracy of dates and see which alternative is closer to the truth. Leiby claims the Guard told him 'fall' of '94. Of course, he does not specifically claim 'out of' by that date, but it is implied in that there is no relevance to associating the date and the image except with respect to the intent to distance the relationship of the image to OKC as far as possible.
He printed that in some confidence, or because he knew better than to investigate further to verify (the rule of thumb in news journalism is to find two sources which confirm one another.) My own investigation produces a source within DARPA, and a witness to statements by that source, who (I withhold names to avoid any possible negative repercussions to the DARPA official or witness) the date of December (not Fall) of '94 as the exit date, making Leiby's article appear all the more questionable. Leiby could try two excuses: 1) "The fall date was based on when the picture was taken, not when the DARPA site was closed." I like that one, because it satisfactorily serves to distance the image from the blast - but wait... how would the Guard know when the picture was taken if the image surfaced anonymously? Wouldn't Leiby logically have to ask the Guard that question? Well, on to 2) "I did not misinform - they were there in the fall, but left in December." That's OK, too, except that if Leiby knew that and still printed only the 'fall', then we would know for sure that the intent of the article was to mislead. If Leiby did not know that, why did not the Guard know it and tell him? Since those dogs won't hunt, I'll change the subject and take the heat off of Leiby for awhile, and ask why DARPA should be so forthcoming in violation of normal security protocol? There might just be a reason...
So now, if the Guard says 'fall', why would DARPA say December?
Why not both stick with Fall, or even start with and stick with December?
One answer might be that someone wanted to distance themselves as far from
April in Oklahoma as possible, but made a slight technical miscalculation
which had to be fixed by adjusting the date - much in the same manner that
FBI kept adjusting the amount of explosives needed to do the deed in Oklahoma.
Fortunately, there are two different but mutually confirming data elements
contained within the pictures themselves which will help answer this question,
and others.. The first of these is the shadows, and the second is found
in the biological environment...
|Scientific Image Dating Demonstrates
DARPA Lies: The Shadows and Trees Talk
Since the claimed image date of April conflicts with
both the Washington Post's claimed fall date and DARPA's own claimed December
date, we need a way to see who is lying, and why. There are two possible
means, shadow dating, and biological dating based on the foliage.
Both are based on science and are incontrovertible, and should thus be
in agreement with one another. Any conflicts or confirmations of
the claimed dates should be satisfactorily compelling. Chips fall
where they may, let the games begin...
Ever since the images were first introduced, there has been hot debate between those who argue that the image shows a fall environment and those who think it a spring environment. Focusing on the trees or other foliage, everything from dead and brown leaves to fresh ivy leaves were claimed as basis for determinations. But few involved in these debates were familiar with the area, or were not experts on the local plants, and thus quite disadvantaged. But now, the bomb factory images have finally been reviewed by botanical experts working in the State of Oklahoma (also wishing their names to be withheld) who are intimately familiar with the area in question, and who have personally visited Camp Gruber's surrounding area frequently enough to present confident conclusions - even providing photographs to prove the point. With multiple qualified persons in agreement, the testimony and images offered cannot be easily ignored. Their findings confirm everyone wrong!
There are several critical points about the images which help to biologically date them. The first, and perhaps most telling with respect to Leiby's 'fall' claim allegedly obtained from the National Guard, is the colors, not to mention a problem with any abundance of leaves in the principle image. Neither the original image or the color corrected image offer any hint of the correct fall colors for the area (experimenting, I found no form of color balance manipulation could produce an effect suitable to claim fall coloring), or enough leaves, as seen in the November image in the set below. Clearly, the above image was not shot in or prior to the fall, at all. Take away the point earned from the Post in shadow dating in the prior section, above.
The second point, also found in the trees, is the absence of leaves in the Oak trees. The botanists from the area tell us that the particular trees which are key in the matter are Post Oak and Blackjack Oak, which do not start to loose their leaves until wintry December. Indeed, in the aforementioned Web discussions, there were a few persons making that point about missing leaves, but no one could say for certain to anyone's satisfaction that they were oak trees at all, since no one of acceptable credibility could claim to have 'been there, seen that.' Thus we find DARPA's December date is also unacceptable, and take away their shadow dating point.
Leaves still clinging to Oak in 'winter' and Oak Forestation Pattern from <http://www.cavern.uark.edu>
Why might both the Post and DARPA be so wrong? Why should there even be disagreement between them? The answer to that question is not necessarily unfathomable, and could be quite telling, if we allow such conjecture in our thinking. Consider that any ordinary person assigned to concoct a cover story to explain away the images might reasonably notice the bare trees and, in an attempt to distance the photographs as far as possible from the April blast date, might further be tempted to describe it as a 'Fall' setting. Feeling smug, they might say... "Feed that to the Guard to leak to the paper - they will print anything we tell them." It could happen.
Now if there was a cover up concocted as just described, they would naturally be watching the developing public interest rather closely. That is one of the roles of government disinformationalists as previously mentioned. Seeing such a comment about the trees, they would logically attempt to verify. Finding the matter true, they would need to find a quick fix. This could account for DARPA's more 'accurate' date of December, and explain why the Guard does not apparently seem to know what actually takes place on its own base, and when. Such is the role of those assigned to leak information. "I know nothing but what I've told you, and if anyone asks me, I didn't tell you that." Since we cannot subtract from zero, we can't penalize the Guard or DARPA claims for lying, so add one point to the bomb factory side of the score board, making it 0:0:2 so far.
But even that strategy would backfire. As it happens, there is a third point about the trees. These Oak trees are extremely tough, and will not have lost all of their leaves on lower branches even in December, and hold on to a considerable quantity typically well into late January, pending the first buds which literally eject the straggler leaves - when the above picture was actually taken as this clue clearly tells us. Look at the December 31 image in the above set. The identifiable Oak would seem virtually bare, not populated as seen in the snow scene - while in the February 18 image we see no leaves remaining, but the new buds are not yet greening the branches. Comparing the image in question against these leaves us with the clear understanding we are actually looking at early spring when the new buds are forming, but not yet visibly altering the 'color' from a distance towards green. Now the score is 0:0:3, bomb factory walking away with it.
The fourth point is equally important, confirming earlier springtime for the images. What appears in the photograph to be a few clumps of green leaves on the one tree at the bottom of the compound are apparently actually mistletoe, which is quite common to the area. Now mistletoe likes to be high in the oak tree (see sample February image above), and in the image, those leaves are the longest and highest of the tree. This again confirms the image as mid to late February, as any further delay in the season and fresh leaves would begin to compete with the mistletoe for our attention - unless Mother Nature was behind schedule for some reason in 1995. No proof of that seems in the offing. Of even more importance, the botanical dating perfectly coincides with the shadow dating. Score one more for science over lies: 0:0:4, final score.
Since we have witnesses who tell us the mystery site was not there but for a few months we know the image in question was not taken in 1994. But this means that despite proving the Post, the Guard, and DARPA dates to be disinformation, we must also consider that someone may have also lied about the early April picture date - perhaps to insure that viewers of the image made the logical association with the Oklahoma blast. Or, perhaps the original date claimed for the images may have been based on the processor dates inked on the reverse of the original photofinished prints. Since we do not have access to the photographer or the original prints, and Mr. Hyakowa isn't inclined to discuss the matter, both must be considered a possibility. But the greater question is why would government lie (twice) about the dating?
It only makes sense if the whole purpose of coming forward with the information in the first place was to provide disinformation designed to destroy the value and importance of the images. The second date makes sense in light of a reasonable error in calculations based on the bare trees. But that both are lies shows just how important the images actually are. Something very serious is wrong and it obviously does have ties to the Oklahoma blast. Should we conclude the Ryder truck in the image is the one disintegrated in front of the Murrah building that fateful day. Perhaps, but I doubt it. My spies have turned up eye witnesses that report multiple Ryder trucks making deliveries to the encampment in the fall, when they say the camp was first being set up (OK, score one for the Guard, if you wish...) You can bet that if a bomb was built there, it was removed from the camp well before the bombing in order to insure that no one associated the matters. That means transiting the device to a storage area somewhere, returning the rental truck(s), and awaiting a final rental, pickup, and delivery of the bomb some weeks later. No one the wiser (except for that damned picture!)
It deserves mentioning... that the reason the experts
who have evaluated these images for dating purposes wish to remain anonymous
(and why they elected not to try to visit, examine, and take pictures of
the actual site within Camp Gruber) is that once they understood the basic
dating issues, they immediately perceived the "logical" and, frankly scary,
implications of those Ryder truck scenes. A conspiracy of horrendous and
frightening consequence seems to have been undertaken by someone capable
of wielding Federal power and resources at will. In such matters, there
seems to be a tendency for witnesses and investigators to die mysteriously,
or in defiance of statistical probabilities of coincidental heart attacks
and accidents. One such accident may already be exactly the case, and may
lead to understanding who actually took the original pictures which now
seem so incredibly important. It at lest demonstrates that any fear-driven
anonymity may be a reasonable precaution.
|Pilot's Death May be Linked to Photos, Suggests Murder
and Cover Up
On May 15, just a few weeks after the OKC bombing, a certain Sergeant
Robert Louis Harding of the Oklahoma National Guard, a facility manager
at Camp Gruber, was killed in the crash of his small home-built aircraft.
Oddly enough, this crash happened at Camp Gruber, though the precise location
within the camp seems to be an 'unavailable' detail from NTSB. The NTSB
report claims it was a simple case of pilot error - attempting take off
when the engine performance was inadequate, resulting in an alleged entanglement
with a power line. If that was true, it makes me wonder if the take off
might not have been far more urgent than normal, such as in a life or death
escape attempt? Like the NTSB omission, there is also a strange omission
of details in the obituary notice (see obituary notice top
of this page), which fails to mention the air crash at all, much less
that it happened at Camp Gruber. Note it ironically appears next to an
article on the OK blast itself.