Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Lady hanging coat in closet
Lady hanging coat in closet
People gathered in living room
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE # 93293 - TAPE 3 People gathered in living room
Cleaning mirror
Cleaning mirror
Watering front yard w/fountain
Watering front yard w/fountain
Interior of kitchen
Int. kitchen - PREVIEW CASSETTE# 93293 - TAPE 3
Father & son reading
Father & son reading newspaper together - Transferred to master 1040
Woman in kitchen
Woman in kitchen
Lady in kitchen cooking
Lady in kitchen cooking
Lady in kitchen cooking
Lady in kitchen cooking
Dr. Clark See 176 (?)
Dr. Clark See 176 (?)
Babies & children of the world
Babies & children of the world
Infants toys
Infants toys
Austria (children)
Austria (children)
(trans) Birth of baby, crib, boy crawling -...
(trans) Birth of baby, crib, boy crawling - riding bicycle
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.02.00--in LEHRER in studio--PBS station ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.04.20--LEHRER in studio] LERHER introduces questioning of Hugh SLOAN by Senator BAKER. [00.04.33--to committee room, wide shot of table at front] AFTERNOON SESSION, WEDNESDAY, June 6, 1973 Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Senator Baker. Senator BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sloan, I join in the statement that Senator Talmadge made before the adjournment for lunch, that you have presented the appearance of a man who is fair and who is open and forthcoming in your testimony and we are grateful to you. I have the impression that, from your description and the description of others, your cooperation has been of a similar quality with those who have undertaken the investigation of these affairs. I believe that is my point of departure, if I might. Would you tell me how many inquiries into the Watergate situation have produced an interview or inquiry of you? To recall the situation, the U.S. Attorney's office interviewed you, I believe Mr. LaRue and others for the Committee To Re-Elect the President interviewed you. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Senator BAKER. The FBI interviewed you. The staff of this committee has interviewed you, I believe, on more than one occasion. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; that is correct. Senator BAKER. Is there anyone else who has interviewed you in this case? Mr. SLOAN. There have been probably three or four occasions with the General Accounting Office over a period Of time; the two grand jury appearances referred to earlier; numerous depositions in the various civil cases relating to this matter. I have really lost count, Senator, of the time and the number of occasions to this point. Senator BAKER. But you have been a well-interviewed man in the course of the last several months I do not mean to burden the record with unnecessary repetition, but could you briefly describe to me the subject matter of the several inquiries made of you? I am particularly interested in the scope of the interrogation. Begin, if you will, with the first investigation, When was the first time you were interviewed? Was that by the FBI? Mr. SLOAN-. You are talking of an external investigation? Senator BAKER. I am speaking really of any time subsequent to the early morning hours of June 17, 1972, Mr. SLOAN. I considered initially this investigation began as an internal investigation. My understanding, was that 'Mr, LaRue had that function within the campaign committee, Senator Baker. How did you receive that information? Mr. SLOAN. Whether he imparted that to me, I am not sure. It is situation of general knowledge within the committee that he Was looking into the matter. Senator BAKER. And this was as early as during the day of June 17, 1972? Mr. SLOAN. I do not believe it quite moved that fast, Senator. I believe it was in that early part, or mid-week of the week following the break-in. Senator BAKER. Was that the first, interview you had relative. to the Watergate affair? Mr. SLOAN. I believe so; yes, sir. [00.07.34]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.28.57--Robert MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the Senators are hoping that SLOAN'S testimony will lead them into the inner workings of the COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT, and that Senator BAKER'S questions went to the central purpose of the committee, reforming CAMPAIGN FINANCING. Senator ERVIN will question SLOAN next. Solicits viewer response to the coverage, 70,000 letters, 99% in favor of the form of the coverage--suggests sending letters (and donations) to local public TV stations [PBS network ID--Title Screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.32.10--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL introduces Senator ERVIN'S questioning, stating that ERVIN seems to be looking for clues to possible White House involvement in the Watergate coverup [00.32.33--in to wide shot of committee table] Senator ERVIN. Do you not think this is an area where we need the highest standard of ethics which exceed the requirements of law? Mr. SLOAN. Excuse me, Senator? Senator ERVIN. Don't you think in this area that individuals should have personal ethics whose requirements exceeded the strict letter of the law? Mr. SLOAN, Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, it is a fundamental principle of ethics that people who handle funds belonging to other people keep records of them, isn't it? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And I judge from your testimony that you had many misgivings as an individual about the way matters were being handled in the receipt and disbursement of funds, didn't you? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, in this transition period. Senator ERVIN. You were not a policymaker were you? Mr. SLOAN. in certain areas but not in this area. Senator ERVIN. You worked primarily or entirely, I would say, if I infer correctly, with Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, your duties were confined entirely to the finance side of the matter and you had nothing to do with the political aspect of it? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir; I would say the only overlap was I was a member of the budget committee that considered the total expenditures for the campaign. The finance committee's role in that essentially would be to say this is all the money we can raise, you have to set your priorities within those limits, We were a restraint factor on the political spending, Senator ERVIN. NOW, you are not a lawyer? Mr. SLOAN. No sir. Senator ERVIN. And in trying to comply with the old law and the new law you were acting upon legal advice given you by others? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Liddy, was he your legal advisor? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir; he was the counsel to the committee at that time. Senator ERVIN. Now at times you had approximately $1,777,000 available to the Committee To Re-Elect the President which were not deposited in banks? Mr. SLOAN. Of that figure, Senator, approximately a million was in terms of direct payments to individuals. The balance, the $750,000, Was deposited in bank accounts. [00.35.05]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.07.34] Senator BAYER. Would you tell us the scope of 'Mr. LaRue's inquiry? Mr. SLOAN. At this point in time, it, was very general. It. was--I would say he restricted his inquiry essentially into the Liddy matter. Within the committee at a very early period, it, was quite. obvious, I think, to everyone that the focus was on Mr. Liddy and as far as any knowledge 1 had that pertained to that, it would be. the area of the money that, I turned over to Mr. Liddy. Senator BAKER. Do you know whether Mr. La Rue had any previous information of his own about 'Mr, Liddy's participation in any of these affairs at the time he made these inquiries of you? Mr. SLOAN. I have no such knowledge. Senator BAKER. What was the nature, of the inquiry that Mr. LaRue made of the Liddy situation? Mr. SLOAN. Essentially, it was seeking the information of me, sort, of the dollar figures. I think once he had the dimensions of it, as I believe I mentioned this morning he came back to me saying this was a very politically sensitive issue, we need to come in with a, lower figure. At that point, it sort, of broke, and I understood Mr. Mardian as being relatively external, In the sense that he had joined the committee shortly before my interview, that he had picked up sort of the range of the investigation. Knowing Mr. 'Mardian, that would be Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien. Senator BAKER. The inquiry of you about, 'Mr. Liddy's functions and responsibilities in the committee was limited just to the payments to Mr. Liddy by you? Mr. SLOAN. I think there was a total awareness of Mr. Liddy's function, at, least as it was supposed to be; there were no inquiries in that regard. It was as purely in regard to financial payments to him. Senator BAKER, But no purely inquiries were put to you about, Mr, Liddy's functions as it involved responsibility for' the Watergate episode? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. What was the next interview you had? Mr. SLOAN. Following the Mardian interview, which was the--that was on the 24th of June Just prior to my departing for Bermuda. Senator BAKER. By whom? Mr. SLOAN. This was Mr. Mardian's interview on the 3rd. He again was asking and concentrating On the Liddy payments, also Mr. Porter's payments, I think a far more comprehensive approach to the general financial dealings than had been the case with Mr. LaRue. Senator BAKER, What was the next episode? Mr. SLOAN. It was when I sought out Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien on the evening of July 6. Senator BAKER. An, what was the essence of that conversation? Mr. SLOAN. That conversation was an approach by me to advise them of the facts I knew because they had not sought me out at that point. It was in the face of-the personnel of the finance area had already been subpenaed before, the grand jury. As I said this morning, I felt it was a very severe problem that needed to be addressed and I sought them out, to impart that information to them. Senator BAKER. What was the next time you were interviewed or had a conversation about the Watergate affair? Mr. SLOAN. I think I skipped over the FBI. Senator BAKER. I believe so. Would you go back and identify that by date and tell us of the scope of the FBI inquiry? Mr. SLOAN. I believe that was in mid-week, probably the 21st or 22d of June. It was an interview purely on the question of whether I knew Mr. Alfred Baldwin, was he an employee of the committee. They asked to have our records made available to them to check out those facts. It was very brief and purely on that subject. Senator BAKER. Solely on the. subject of Mr. Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Were any questions asked you regarding Magruder, Mr. Dean, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Liddy, Mr. McCord, Mr. Barker, or anyone else except Mr. Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN, No, sir. The sole subject of that interview was whatever- whether we could identify Mr. Baldwin as having been an employee of the committee. Senator BAKER. Could you? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, 1 never heard of him. Senator BAKER. Do you have any idea why the FBI limited its inquiry to Mr. Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I did not, Senator BAKER. Did it seem to be limited to a particular purpose. Did they express a reason for wanting to know particularly about Mr. Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN. They indicated, the agents who were there at that time, that they had information that Mr. Baldwin had been involved in a demonstration--- am not sure. They did identify where it was, but I have forgotten where that was. Senator BAKER. No one asked you about the Watergate break-in in the course of that FBI interview? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, it was never mentioned. Senator BAKER, Nobody ever asked you about Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Mr. Hunt? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Mr. McCord? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, Senator BAKER. Money? ? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Accounting? Mr. SLOAN. Money--only in the sense of-was Mr, Baldwin on the payroll or had we paid him any money. Senator BAKER. And no one asked you about the $100 bills that were found with or on the defendants that, were involved in the break-in or illegal entry into Democratic national headquarters? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Did any member of the FBI or the Justice Department ever discuss any of this with you? Mr. SLOAN. The next occasion I had to meet with the FBI was following my resignation, which I believe was on the Friday, July 14, I think I am correct in this, that they were present at, my home the following Monday morning and every morning thereafter. Senator BAKER. When did you resign? Mr. SLOAN. On a Friday, July 14. [00.13.19]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.13.19] Senator BAKER. And the following Monday, which would have been the 17th Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER [continuing]. Of July., the FBI was at your home that morning? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And each morning thereafter, did you say? Mr. SLOAN. The problem there, Senator, was that on that, occasion, they were very much interested in the, Watergate matter. I indicated to them that, I felt because there was a possibility on my part of technical violations of the, campaign lam, that 1 wished to be represented by an attorney before I talked to them, but, that I would be happy to cooperate With them. At that point, I was in the process of receiving a refusal from one attorney and it took me a day or two to get another and they leaned on me fairly heavily during that period until I did have an attorney. Senator BAKER. All right, after you secured an attorney, when did you then talk to the FBI about, the broader range and spectrum of Watergate material? Mr. SLOAN. There was never an independent discussion with the FBI. They were present the first, time I talked to the U.S. prosecutors, Mr. Silbert, Mr. Glanzer, Mr. Campbell. Senator BAKER. When was that? Mr. SLOAN. It Was On July 20, I believe, Senator. Yes, sir, I believe that is correct. Senator BAKER. I am sorry? Mr. SLOAN. July 20, Senator BAKER, July 20? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator BAKER. And tell us briefly: What transpired in that, interview, who was present, where it was held, and the substance of the, interview? Mr. SLOAN. It was in Mr. Silbert's office. Present, were, myself, my attorney, Mr. Stoner, -Mr. Glanzer, Mr. Campbell, and I believe I am correct two agents from the Federal Bureau. Senator BAKER. And what subject matter was covered? Mr. SLOAN. The entire Watergate matter. Senator BAKER. What did you tell them? Mr. SLOAN. What I have told you gentlemen here this morning, Excuse me, Senator. We had really two sessions with them, We did not cover all the material on one occasion. I believe, for instance, the discussions about the Magruder approach, and so forth, were covered in a session a, day or two later. Senator BAYER. YOU are. talking about the indication by Mr. Magruder that you should perjure yourself? Mr. SLOAN. 'Yes sir. Senator BAKER. That was covered in the second interview at the U.S. attorney's office? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator BAKER. Was that matter ever brought out in the trial of the Watergate defendants? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Was it ever discussed before the grand jury? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, it was. Senator BAYER- Were you asked those questions at the U.S. attorney's office? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. I would say with regard to my grand jury testimony that I believe I spent about an hour before the grand jury and my best recollection is that approximately half of that time was devoted to the Magruder question. Senator BAKER. Mr. Sloan, how would you characterize, if you can so characterize, the interviews you had with the U.S. attorney's office and the FBI? Were they thorough and searching? Mr. SLOAN. The FBI, in torn-is of the interviews I had with the U.S. attorney's office, they were there as observers. I really have never been questioned by the FBI except in the Baldwin matter. I would say that, given the time and the information that Was available at the time, I feel they were extremely thorough, Senator BAKER. Mr. Sloan, one of the responsibilities ties of this committee is to file a report ultimately on its findings and to recommend, if it chooses to do so, revisions in the Campaign Expenditure Act, election reform, and the like; in a word, to make recommendations On how such situations might be avoided In future Presidential campaigns. Let me ask you a few questions about that, because in a strange, and I am sure unwelcome Way, you have become the Nation's leading expert on this particular situation, at least from the, stand- I point of firsthand knowledge. Would it seriously or would it interfere at all with the conduct of the Presidential election if there were an absolute statutory bar against receiving cash contributions or making cash disbursements? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I think it would be, for individuals in the technical implementation of the law like myself, I think it would be of great assistance,. Senator BAKER. Wholly aside from the accountant's point of view, and knowing, as you do, something of the internal workings, of the financial side of the national campaign, do you foresee a difficulty in that respect? Do you see any way it would hamper or impede the orderly operation of a Presidential campaign to require that all receipts and all disbursements be by some tender other than currency? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I would see, no problem with that whatsoever. [00.18.38]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.18.38] Senator BAKER. It is my understanding, and I think you have, intimated as much Without saying so, it is my understanding that in the last several weeks before April 7, there was a virtual torrent of contributions? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And many of them wore cash contributions? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And it has been my experience from MY own campaigns, and I rather suspect that others have the same experience, that maximum contributions occur in the last 2 or 3 weeks before an election. Did you have a similar experience in the Presidential election? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Tell us what, if any, difficulty you had in accounting for last-minute contributins, whether in cash or by check? Does that become a problem? Mr. SLOAN. The sheer volume, yes, sir. I think personally, I handled in the neighborhood of $6 Million in a 2-day period, Senator BAKER. that before the -,November election? Mr. SLOAN. -NO; this was just, prior to April 7, I think the change in the campaign law, in effect, produced a kind of deadline similar to an election. Senator BAKER. Did you have a similar bulge, a similar acceleration in the rate of contributions before the election, just before the election in November? Mr. SLOAN. Of course, I was not there in this election, Senator, but in 1968, 1 would agree with that, yes, as a pattern. Senator BAKER. That was the pattern? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Yes, Sir. Senator BAKER. From your vantage point as one who has participated in two Presidential elections and been in intimately involved in the detail, do you see any difficulty that might derive from a statutory moratorium on any contributions, say, for 2 weeks before the election? Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure I would be qualified to evaluate that, Senator, Senator BAKER. The point of the matter being that it is difficult, if not impossible, to account for last minute money in time for last Minute accounting? Mr. SLOAN'. Yes, sir; I would agree. Senator BAKER. And if campaign disclosure legislation is to have any beneficial effect in the sense the public knows for what the candidates spend money, there ought to be a cutoff point, it seems to Me, sometime substantially prior to the date of the election. If that Were proposed, do you as an expert, so to speak, in this field think that would seriously jeopardize the operation of a, campaign? Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir' I think any date you set as the final date would be looked on by contributors and I think it would produce your bulge in the earlier period. Senator BAKER. I think that is true, but it would give you a better opportunity to report and disclose it, in time for the public to take it in account before the election. Mr. SLOAN. I would agree with that, particularly under the new law where you have detailed accounting procedures where you do, I think it is -almost essential. Senator BAKER. Under the new Campaign Expenditure Act which went into effect on April 7, 1972, and under which we presently operate, there is a limitation, as you know, on radio, television, and certain categories of expenditure, but there is not a total overall limitations of expenditures in Presidential or other Federal elections. If the Congress of the United States were to establish a maximum limitation on expenditures and to establish a requirement that expenditures be not only documented and accounted for, but that they could not be in cash, it there was a requirement that contributions could not ,ash if there was a requirement, that contributions could not be in cash 2 received, nor expended, nor obligations liquidated on behalf of candidates, say, for 2 weeks before the election and if there were a limitation as to the total amount you could spend and a limitation, say, of $3,000 on what an individual could give, do you think that combination of circumstances would provide, an unworkable. situation from the standpoint, of financing a Presidential or a Federal election? Mr. SLOAN. I think one of the most effective curbs might be a time limit on elections. When you look at the 1972 campaign, we started back in March 1971. It is almost a 2-year period of activity. I think a total spending ceiling could be worked with. I suspect quite frankly, out of this kind of situation that is unfolding here, it may Very well get to the point the only way to fund a Presidential campaign is through public funding. I think today in today's world, the intertwining of the business sector with Government with disclosure is going to make it no one's interest in business to contribute because every action after that will be looked into in that light. [00.23.41]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.23.41] Senator BAKER. In my wildest imaginations, I never dreamed I would sit here and have an argument with you about Federal financing of campaigns, but, I am prepared to do that. And as my good friend John Gardner, who is president of Common Cause, and I talk about from time to time, there is the problem. There is the question of financing political campaigns, but just for the brief purposes of this moment, I have a great fear -not only of the abuse of money, especially cash, but I also have a, great, fear of the Federal bureaucracy taking over the electoral system. So before we go that extra mile I think we- ought to give careful thought to the alternative possibilities that are available to us. Do you have any other suggestions, Mr. Sloan, on how we could provide for reasonableness, candor, openness, and accountability on the financial side of politics? Mr. SLOAN. Sir, I think One Of the really great tragedies of this particular campaign is this situation of having one law in effect for part of the campaign and the new law in effect for the balance of the campaign, because I think the whole campaign financing law is being judged in terms of the conduct in this transition period. I do not, believe, for instance, that the present law has been given a fair chance. I think no professional fund raiser would argue with the premise of disclosure. It is a great help in a, way. It takes a lot of the temptations, out of the way or the pressures. I think most of us were glad to See it. But having it come in the middle of the campaign we had to deal with the only rules that existed at the time in the earlier period. I would like to see at least for one more Presidential campaign, the laws that now stand given a fair chance. I think there is a lot Wrong with them but I do not think it has had a fair chance in its present form. I think all of the abuses at least in terms of the campaign to -which I can address myself to, if you will call them abuses are totally related to the earlier period or this transition period, I think that in the effort that, was made to comply with the new law with any contribution that was understood to be a Contribution post-April 7 period, and 1 am not talking about these funds here I am talking about the general receipts. 1 think our campaign did' a magnificent job, I think it is a workable law. I would agree with you, I would rather see an overall ceiling for money period On a campaign than the intermediary but, its restricting choice or like to see a time limit of a campaign restriction, but, I think it is one Of the, great tragedies of this situation, the inability to look at the new law and its workings in a dispassionate sense. Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr Sloan. I have one. other line of questions that will not take very long, You have covered the material in general with Mr. Dash, the counsel for the committee and Mr. Thompson. I would like to know a, little, more about the extent. and scope of the knowledge of Mr. Stans and Mr. Mitchell of the Watergate operations insofar as you have that, information. Mr. SLOAN. Senator, aside from ]what I have read in the newspapers I have no direct knowledge. Senator BAKER. Did you ever talk with Mr. Stans Dr Mr. Mitchell about the Watergate situation" Mr. SLOAN. -Not to Mr. Mitchell. I met with Mr. Mitchell only on one occasion that has been referred to earlier. During that week, I traveled with Secretary Stans. He, had numerous conversations with, as I understood it from what I could hear at his end of the conversation, presumably with Bob Mardian and Fred LaRue, the people who were understood to be handling the Problem from the political campaign standpoint. Mr. Stans was extremely defensive in all of the conversations I heard. He insisted from the end of the conversation I heard, he said, "Dammit, this is not a finance problem, you guys have to handle it and you have got to keep it away from Sloan and myself because we have nothing to do with it." Senator BAKER. Do you know what he was talking about? Mr. SLOAN. I am making an assumption, Senator, but I think a pretty obvious one, that this was about the only issue being discussed at this point. Senator BAKER, How would you characterize Mr. Stans' attitude or demeanor at that time? Mr. SLOAN. I think he was angry, I think he was upset with the Political campaign, political side of the campaign. Senator BAKER. Did you ask him what he meant? Mr. SLOAN. No sir. Senator BAKER. Thank you. [00.28.57--Robert MacNEILL in studio]
Sky Thriller: 'Chuting Stars Play Tag Aloft
Sky Thriller: Chuting Stars Play Tag Aloft. The Navy's crack stunt team, the "Chuting Stars" have a final dress rehearsal before beginning their third year of thrilling crowds all over the world. They fall free for two miles before opening their chutes - meanwhile, they maneuver as if all of infinity was their stage. A twin engine air plane flying, exit door on plane is open. MCUS - Inside the plane there are 10 - neb sitting with NAVY crash helmets on their heads. Air to Air shot - "Chuting Stars" printed on the side of the plane. And the Navy paratroopers are bailing out of the plane doing a free fall. Air to Skydiver - These guys are playing tag as their free-falling from 10,000 up. The have flairs on one of their boots. Air shot - One of the jumpers is doing a summer-salt in the air. MS - The Chuting Stars are landing on their target, X marks the spot.