The Intercept: A Smoking Gun?

New findings from Robert Stinnett's book lend credence to the idea that the USS Healy's deck log was 24 hours "off"--that it recorded the date at the top of each section as the date on which that section ended, not when it began. In other words, the Healy's log was attempting to allow for the way some sections ran into the subsequent days (12:01 a.m.) for some ongoing events being recorded.

The document that suggests this is the case, is a US Navy Intelligence intercept of a Japanese radio message describing how some of their aircraft were about to fly from the home islands base at Yokasuka to Iwo Jima; from there, Stinnett tells us, the next day the planes took off toward the US fleet--and Guam. One of the planes was shot down and retrieved by the USS Healy.

The significance of this event lies in the exact date, and the way the date is recorded "wrong" in the Healy's deck log. The intercept in question appears thusly in Stinnett. Please note that the circled items don't appear as such in the original document--the circles are the writer's handiwork. Also, handwritten annotation toward the bottom is also mine.

The reader will note that the message was intercepted at "6/201830" hours--that is, on June 20, 1944, at around 8:30 p.m. After having been intercepted, it was analyzed for at least two hours. Once the significance of the message was realized, it was re-transmitted to the interested parties in US Naval Intelligence at "06/202210"--that is, at 10:10 a.m. (2210) on June 20, 1944.

The text of the document tells us that Japanese aircraft will be flying into "Base #52" on Iwo Jima "today"--that is, the date of the re-transmission of the message by US Naval Intellignce, or, June 20, 1944. Robert Stinnett tells us in this section of his book George Bush: His World War II Years (76), that these planes "flew down the Chi Chi Jima slot overnight and arrived at Iwo Jima." Stinnett asserts that this had to have occurred on June 22--the overnight flight. He is basing this on the "erroneous" dates on the USS Healy's deck log, to which he is referring for details of the pickup of this aircraft's crew by the Healy. In fact, we see that this overnight flight to Iwo Jima occurred on June 20-1, and that the plane thus took off from Iwo Jima, not at 6:32 "the morning of June 23" as Stinnett would have it (again, based on the Healy's log), but on June 22.

This is significant in reinforcing the idea that the USS Healy's deck log is always 24 hours "off" as to its dates. That is, when one is reading a section of the Healy's logbook, it suggests that, unlike most (though perhaps not all) US WW2 warship logs, the Healy's is "dated ahead" to allow for possible errors in the event some ongoing events overlap into the next day.

This also suggests it is more likely that the event involving Richard Houle's crash during the Battle of the Philippines Sea occurred, not on June 20, as the Healy's log suggests, but on June 19, 1944.

This, in turn, suggests that the USS CK Bronson's deck log notation for June 19, 1944, as having "spotted a friendly TBM Avenger from USS San Jacinto in water landing alongside" is a reference, not to the crash-landing of George Bush's plane, but to that of Dick Houle!

Therefore, as we see below, the CK Bronson's reference on this numbered page, is an independent clause that refers back to the original ship at the beginning of the clause. That is, the Avenger in question is water-landing alongside, not the CK Bronson, but the ship that appears "alongside" Houle's plane in this photo--that is, the USS San Jacinto. In order to realize the significance of this, we'll need to examine the deck log of the USS CK Bronson itself.

The Bronson's deck log has an interesting sequence of three pages that ostensibly describe the June 19, 1944 events involving George Bush's alleged "waterlanding", two of which are numbered, but the middle one of which is not.

First, however, we note the following photo from Stinnett (80) which is a second photo of Houle's water landing. Please note that in the background, on the horizon, is a ship: this ship, Stinnett tells us, has been identified as the CK Bronson. Thus, Houle's plane is in the "lne of sight" (illustrated by me with a faint line from the faintly circled Bronson) of the Bronson. Indeed, Stinnett himself notes that this is the case--that the Houle crash was visible from the Bronson. Since it seems apparent that the Healy's log is "off" by 24 hours, its record of this event--Houle's crash--as occurring on "June 20" is inaccurate: this occurred on June 19. That, in turn, means the CK Bronson's notation of June 19 as to the "friendly Avenger" crashing "alongside", and the Healy's "June 20" record of Houle's crash, could very well be overlapping accounts. I've suggested this before, but the Naval Intercept above seems to confirm this possibility. The planes in question in the intercept clearly took off from Iwo Jima on June 22 and were shot down that same day. The Healy's log, however, is recording this as "June 23." By the same token, a June 19 event--Houle's crash--seems recorded by the Healy as June 20. That same event is recorded in the Bronson's log as occurring on June 19. Here then is the second photo of Houle's crash, with the Bronson in line of sight on the horizon:

We see the Bronson circled on the horizon and its line of sight illustrated.

Now we must examine the deck log of the CK Bronson: In this first page, we see that there is, as is usual with the Bronson's log, a page number. We also note that, since the page has some data that continues from a previous page, the word "Cont." for "continued", appears. This is the standard format for the Bronson's log, and is found throughout--except on one very interesting page, which we'll come to after we examine one other thing on this page.

Here, at the bottom of this page, we see that the Bronsonis recording the famed water landing so often attributed to George Bush. In this blow up, we see that the clause or phrase referring to this, begins with the (circled) time: "1309" hours; then it continues: "friendly TBM from USS San Jacinto crashed in water landing alongside ["alongside" is circled by the writer--mcs]". A closer analysis of this entire section, can be found in a separate file on this website, "Bronson Record."

Go to "Bronson Record"

The next thing we examine, is the following page of the Bronson log, which we note is not numbered.

We also note that this page doesn't contain the word "cont" to designate a "continued" hourly section. Intriguingly, too, we note that this page is a reference to knowledge of the state of the aircraft at the time of the crash that could not possibly have been an on-the-spot knowledge. That is, this knowledge of the plane's physical condition at the time of the crash could only have been known to the crew--and, most especially, to the pilot--namely, George Bush. Thus, this description of the aircraft's condition could only have been "filled in" by Bush himself. It could not have been something that the crewmen on the Bronson could have observed. This is intriguing, since, alone of the deck logs relevant to this incident, the Bronson's is handwritten, strongly suggesting its usual state was minute-to-minute, unlike the typewritten logs that were sometimes typed up slightly after the event.

Finally, the final CK Bronson notation that is important, is on the following page--page 499. Primarily, we note that the page numbers have resumed on this page, with no allowance for the missing page, as if the un-numbered page didn't exist at the time. Intriguingly, too, the hourly section number--16-2000 hours--is the one which would appear immediately following the 12-1600 hourly section in which the water landing "alongside" is first recorded.

So, where does all this leave us? With a lot of questions that perhaps can't be answered. For, even if there is something "odd" about these records, what is suggested? That someone tampered--but who, and why? That something was misinterpreted? By whom-- and when? It can't be overwhelmingly demonstrated that Bush acted as the courier the radio book ad suggested. But there is a hint, a suggestion, that funny looking records could have inspired someone who may have already been suspicious--perhaps Bush's squadron member, Polish-descended Chester Mierzejewski? Perhaps, over time, his misgivings over the Bush family's dealings with Hitler going into the invasion of Poland in 1939, gave rise to some suspicion of Bush. And those misgivings may have circulated, given rise to a series of events that led to the information being gotten to someone such as Robert Maxwell, British publisher, politico, sometime secret agent, and famed ad-runner. And the information may have been recorded in book form, perhaps by "Ski", some other Bush squadron member, or, perhaps Gen. Bowen--who, being CIA, had been forced, upon Bush's ascension to the Vice-Presidency in 1981, to relinquish his evidence back to his old superior at CIA, not to re-publish until ten years later, 1991. Or perhaps Gen. Bowen eventually "borrowed" the original title of the book he'd heard about, that he knew had made allegations about Bush in WW2--but which allegations he knew he couldn't repeat because evidence had been destroyed.

Or, perhaps subconscious guilt in GHW Bush regarding his family's early dealings with Hitler was denied and buried by his conscious mind. But, though consciously denied, that guilty image, set in motion a chain of events--synchronistically--that seemed to point some kind of finger of guilt at him. That was expressed, eventually, in "funny looking" records that, in turn, spawned allegations. Perhaps, in short, the real hidden story, is the depth of the human--and perhaps a Universal--mind. Perhaps such phenomena also explain the seeming Clinton/Bush "plot" against Gore or Kerry or to "cover up" 9/11. Perhaps neither actively did so, but guilt-ridden thoughts to that effect, crossed both their minds. Such thoughts or images, though repressed, came to express themselves in "funny looking" facts that, nevertheless, didn't solidly point to guilt, only to thoughts or feelings of ill will.

Go back to the George Bush-Undercurrents website