Group: aus.aviation · Group Profile
Author: veritasveritas Date: Sep 4, 2008 08:22
Paul Saccani wrote:
>
> If you wish to remain misinformed that is your pejorative. For an
> airline that didn't operate in Laos, Air America lost a remarkable
> number of employees killed there....
>
> If you meant Ed Dearborn, he was an Air America (not CASI) employee in
> Laos. The last I heard of him was in the nineties with MEGA oil in
> Azerbaijan, setting up a civil airline, speculated by some to have a
> not coincidental resemblance to Air America. He also set up a
> clandestine air force for the Contras in Nicaragua. If he's dead, I'm
> sorry to hear it.
>
> No one by the name of Dearbourne is recorded as having held an FAA
> pilot certificate, student pilot certificate or even a medical since
> 1945.
If it is the same guy (it may have been) - he really didn't have to have a
current *FAA* certificate. I couldn't say one way or the other - neither can
you - one does not ask to see a potential empoyees personal licences.
Continental, and the guy I spoke to (Dearbourne/Dearborne) was indeed in Laos
at the time and I had a job offer that I didn't take up - so what's your
problem so far?
>
> By the way, the article I referred you to drew largely on interviews
> with Ed Dearborn by Dr. Leary.
Ed Dearbourne/Dearborn (or whatever - it was a long time ago) hired pilots for
*Continental* (I spoke to him PERSONALLY as well as confirmations (as CP) by
mail with his signature affixed to Continental letterheads) (not third party
accounts) - this should tell you the obvious.
As I have already intimated; Continental was funded (and run) by the CIA (as I
had originally stated) under a corporate veil in Laos. Overt CIA (Air
America) can only hire US-nationals so they operated under Continental's
corporate structure (quite a lightly disguised veil - it was no secret) so
that they could legally increase their pilot pool with non-nationals
(JetStar/Qantas seem to have such an incestuous corporate relationship - so it
is not unique - even if it is for different reasons). Clearly, logic will
dictate that the Laotian government, Continental themselves or revenue from
commerce and PAX were NOT funding the cost of its operations in Laos AND it is
just as clear that the US government WAS funding the operation for their
regional strategic/logistic needs.
I really don't give a rats-arse what you may have *read* - logic will dictate
to any reasonable person that they should not rely as heavily, as you seem to
have done, on any publication written by a third party about US
history/politics or CIA operations - not only during the period of the Vietnam
war - but ANY period.
Now, I have no idea what got up your nose - but the original *incidental*
comment that I made is, in essence, reasonably accurate given the time span
involved so why the apparent pedantic nit-picking? I'm not sure what Sigmund
Freud would make of it.
So may I suggest that (1) you believe a book published by a third party, and
(2) I exercise my prerogative to rely on the best of my recollection of
fist-hand events, and leave it at that!
BTW: You and Roger-T aren't related are you? :)
Cheers.
| 
