Illinois professor helps find 4 from WWII bomber crash that left 11 dead
As the World War II bomber Heaven Can Wait was hit by enemy fire off the Pacific island of New Guinea on March 11, 1944, the co-pilot managed a final salute to flyers in an adjacent plane before crashing into the water.
All 11 men aboard were killed. Their remains, deep below the vast sea, were designated as non-recoverable.
Yet four crew members' remains are beginning to return to their hometowns after a remarkable investigation by family members and a recovery mission involving elite Navy divers who descended 200 feet (61 meters) in a pressurized bell to reach the sea floor.
Staff Sgt. Eugene Darrigan, the radio operator, was buried with military honors and community support on Saturday in his hometown of Wappingers Falls, New York, more than eight decades after leaving behind his wife and baby son.
The bombardier, 2nd Lt. Thomas Kelly, was to be buried Monday in Livermore, California, where he grew up in a ranching family. The remains of the pilot, 1st Lt. Herbert Tennyson, and navigator, 2nd Lt. Donald Sheppick, will be interred in the coming months.
The ceremonies are happening 12 years after one of Kelly's relatives, Scott Althaus, set out to solve the mystery of where exactly the plane went down.
'I'm just so grateful,' he told The Associated Press. 'It's been an impossible journey — just should never have been able to get to this day. And here we are, 81 years later.'
March 11, 1944: Bomber down
The Army Air Forces plane nicknamed Heaven Can Wait was a B-24 with a cartoon pin-up angel painted on its nose and a crew of 11 on its final flight.
They were on a mission to bomb Japanese targets when the plane was shot down. Other flyers on the mission were not able to spot survivors.
Their wives, parents and siblings were of a generation that tended to be tight-lipped in their grief. But the men were sorely missed.
Sheppick, 26, and Tennyson, 24, each left behind pregnant wives who would sometimes write them two or three letters a day. Darrigan, 26, also was married, and had been able to attend his son's baptism while on leave. A photo shows him in uniform, smiling as he holds the boy.
Darrigan's wife, Florence, remarried but quietly held on to photos of her late husband, as well as a telegram informing her of his death.
Tennyson's wife, Jean, lived until age 96 and never remarried.
'She never stopped believing that he was going to come home,' said her grandson, Scott Jefferson.
Memorial Day 2013: The Search
As Memorial Day approached 12 years ago, Althaus asked his mother for names of relatives who died in World War II.
Althaus, a political science and communications professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, became curious while researching World War II casualties for work. His mother gave him the name of her cousin Thomas Kelly, who was 21 years old when he was reported missing in action.
Althaus recalled that as a boy, he visited Kelly's memorial stone, which has a bomber engraved on it. He began reading up on the lost plane.
'It was a mystery that I discovered really mattered to my extended family,' he said.
With help from other relatives, he analyzed historical documents, photos and eyewitness recollections. They weighed sometimes conflicting accounts of where the plane went down. After a four-year investigation, Althaus wrote a report concluding that the bomber likely crashed off of Awar Point in what is now Papua New Guinea
The report was shared with Project Recover, a nonprofit committed to finding and repatriating missing American service members and a partner of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, or DPAA. A team from Project Recover, led by researchers from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, located the debris field in 2017 after searching nearly 10 square miles (27 square kilometers) of seafloor.
The DPAA launched its deepest ever underwater recovery mission in 2023.
A Navy dive team recovered dog tags, including Darrigan's partially corroded tag with his the name of his wife, Florence, as an emergency contact. Kelly's ring was recovered. The stone was gone, but the word BOMBARDIER was still legible.
And they recovered remains that underwent DNA testing. Last September, the military officially accounted for Darrigan, Kelly, Sheppick and Tennyson.
With seven men who were on the plane still unaccounted for, a future DPAA mission to the site is possible.
Memorial Day 2025: Belated Homecomings
More than 200 people honored Darrigan on Saturday in Wappingers Falls, some waving flags from the sidewalk during the procession to the church, others saluting him at a graveside ceremony under cloudy skies.
'After 80 years, this great soldier has come home to rest,' Darrigan's great niece, Susan Pineiro, told mourners at his graveside.
Darrigan's son died in 2020, but his grandson Eric Schindler attended.
Darrigan's 85-year-old niece, Virginia Pineiro, solemnly accepted the folded flag.
Kelly's remains arrived in the Bay Area on Friday. He was to be buried Monday at his family's cemetery plot, right by the marker with the bomber etched on it. A procession of Veterans of Foreign Wars motorcyclists will pass by Kelly's old home and high school before he is interred.
'I think it's very unlikely that Tom Kelly's memory is going to fade soon,' said Althaus, now a volunteer with Project Recover.
Sheppick will be buried in the months ahead near his parents in a cemetery in Coal Center, Pennsylvania. His niece, Deborah Wineland, said she thinks her late father, Sheppick's younger brother, would have wanted it that way. The son Sheppick never met died of cancer while in high school.
Tennyson will be interred on June 27 in Wichita, Kansas. He'll be buried beside his wife, Jean, who died in 2017, just months before the wreckage was located.
'I think because she never stopped believing that he was coming back to her, that it's only fitting she be proven right,' Jefferson said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Big Ugly Bill': California's top officials excoriate Trump's big bill while it is debated in Senate
California's top Democrats condemned President Donald Trump's signature domestic policy package Sunday, as the U.S. Senate continued to debate its version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The legislation is a vast array of tax breaks and spending cuts, plus additional money for national defense and deportations, that Republicans say are crucial to keeping the country running. Democrats, however, have said it will destroy state budgets and lives, particularly among the most vulnerable who rely on government-funded programs. 'Millions will lose health care. Hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost. Electricity costs will skyrocket. Needy families will lose access to food,' Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on the social media platform X on Sunday. 'The GOP's budget bill does all that so @realDonaldTrump can give hundreds of billions in tax breaks to his rich friends.' 'Late last night, Senate Republicans voted to advance Trump's Big Ugly Bill that strips health care from nearly a million people MORE than the version passed by the House,' California Sen. Alex Padilla also posted to X on Sunday. 'All to give tax breaks to big corporations and billionaires.' As of Sunday night, Senators were still debating the measure, which Trump had wanted to sign by July 4. The bill must still win final House approval, as well. The Associated Press reported Sunday that a new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate bill would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, which is nearly $1 trillion more than the House-passed bill. The office also concluded that nearly 12 million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034 if the bill becomes law. The legislation would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that were set to expire by year's end, while adding new breaks, leading to a total of $4 trillion in tax cuts. The Senate package would also roll back billions in green energy tax credits and impose roughly $1.2 trillion in cuts, mostly to Medicaid and food assistance, while committing $350 billion to national security, part of which would pay for Trump's mass deportation agenda, according to the Associated Press. California Democrats have warned that the cuts, particularly to Medicaid, would decimate federal spending by imposing more checks on enrollees and providers, establishing work requirements and reducing funding to states that provide insurance to undocumented immigrants. To compensate, state lawmakers have said that states will need to raise taxes and shift funds from other programs. More than a quarter of Californians are on the state's Medicaid program, including 41% of all children, 49% of adults with disabilities and 41% of people living in nursing homes. Throughout the weekend, California representatives turned to X to weigh in. On Sunday, California Sen. Adam Schiff said that Trump's 'Big Ugly Bill' would strip health insurance away from millions of people while driving up energy costs. 'The longer this bill exposed to the sunlight,' U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon, D-Oakland, wrote on Saturday. 'The more people will be able to see what this Republican disaster really is: an unforgivable betrayal of American values and governance that will cause significant, tangible harm to millions of people nationwide for years to come AND disproportionately impact communities of color, the disability community, and seniors.' 'GOP Senators whose states will be screwed by Trump's budget bill are now cutting side deals, eg, exempt Alaska from SNAP work requirements & give $ to rural hospitals,' State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, also wrote. 'All in service of kicking tens of millions off health care & food assistance to fund tax cuts for rich people.'
Atlantic
9 hours ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
UPI
9 hours ago
- UPI
U.N. watchdog: Iran could resume enriching uranium for bomb in months
1 of 2 | A satellite image shows a view of craters and ash on a ridge at Iran's Fordo underground uranium enrichment facility after U.S. airstrikes June 21. Satellite Image 2025 Maxar Technologies/EPA-EFE June 29 (UPI) -- Iran likely can resume uranium enrichment to make a nuclear bomb in a few months, despite damage to nuclear facilities by United States and Israel airstrikes, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog chief said. Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there was a "very serious level of damage" to the nuclear facilities during an interview with CBS News on Saturday. U.S. President Donald Trump said U.S. airstrikes on June 21 "obliterated" the facilities, including Fordo, which is underground in a mountain. Initial intelligence assessments suggested that the strikes were successful but set back Iran's program by months -- not years. "It can be, you know, described in different ways, but it's clear that what happened in particular in Fordo, Natanz, Isfahan, where Iran used to have and still has, to some degree, capabilities in terms of treatment, conversion and enrichment of uranium have been destroyed to an important degree," Grossi said. "Some is still standing. So there is, of course, an important setback in terms of those of those capabilities." He explained what remains. "The capacities they have are there," Grossi said. "They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there." He wants International Atomic Energy officials to be able to return sites for an assessment. "Although our job is not to assess damage, but to re-establish the knowledge of the activities that take place there, and the access to the material, which is very, very important, the material that they will be producing if they continue with this activity," Grissi said. "This is contingent on negotiations, which may or may not restart." Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said the facilities were "seriously damaged," posted on X on Friday that "Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent." Israel was fearful that Iran was nearly ready to have a nuclear bomb within months, and began airstrikes on June 13. Israel relied on American B-2 fighter jets that can send bombs deep into the ground. Earlier this month, the IAEA said Iran amassed enough 60% enriched uranium to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, nuclear deal, which was negotiated by Iran, the United States and the EU, Iran wasn't permitted to enrich uranium above 3.67% purity, which is the level need to fuel commercial nuclear power plants. Iran also was not allowed to carry out any enrichment at the Fordo plant for 15 years. In 2018, President Donald Trump abandoned the agreement among world powers, and instead reinstated U.S. sanctions in an attempt to stop Iran from moving toward making a bomb. Iran resumed enrichment at Fordo in 2021. On Friday, the IAEA said radiation levels in the Gulf region remain after the bombings. Grossi, citing regional data through the 48-nation International Radiation Monitoring System, said the "the worst nuclear safety scenario was thereby avoided." The main concern IAEA had was for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and the Tehran Research Reactor because strikes to either facility, including off-site power lines, would have cause some type of radiological accident felt in both Iran and neighboring nations, but "it did not happen," he said. Grossi noted that the airstrikes would have caused localized radioactive releases inside the impacted facilities and localized toxic effects, based on the roughly 900 pounds of enriched uranium Iran is thought to have had before the attacks. Trump has said he would "absolutely" consider bombing Iran again if intelligence found that it could enrich uranium to concerning levels.
