Navy sues to get return of F3A-1 wreck

[Mike Weeks]

From the AP:

<start>
Navy Sues Civilian for Return of Plane

..c The Associated Press

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The federal government has filed a lawsuit against an
airplane collector demanding the return of the wreckage of a World War II
Corsair fighter that the Navy abandoned after it crashed in a North Carolina
swamp in 1944.

Historical airplane enthusiasts say the plane Lex Cralley dug out of the swamp
near the North Carolina coast is the only one of its kind known to still exist.

Cralley, an airplane mechanic with a passion for preserving World War II
aviation history, salvaged the pieces of the single-engine plane in 1990,
registered it as a ''non-airworthy model'' with the Federal Aviation
Administration and began the painstaking work of restoration, which remains far
from completion.

The Justice Department sued Cralley on behalf of the Navy on Wednesday, seeking
the plane, the cost of returning it and compensation for any damage since
Cralley recovered it.

Cralley said Friday he will defend himself, but acknowledged that the suit has
rattled him.

"I'm just a little guy,'' said Cralley, 49, of Princeton, north of Minneapolis.
"I have no wealth, work for a living, have four kids.''

The lawsuit doesn't say why the plane is important to the Navy. "We're not
going to provide anything more than what we'll be saying in court,'' said
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department's civil division in
Washington.

Cralley said the government contacted him about five years ago to see about
getting the plane back, and suggested an exchange with the National Museum of
Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Fla. He declined to elaborate Saturday, citing the
lawsuit.

Airplane buffs say Cralley's plane is the only known survivor of one particular
model of Corsair, a "Brewster F3A-1,'' built by the Brewster Aeronautical Corp.
of Long Island City, N.Y. Brewster turned out 735, compared to more than 12,000
F4U Corsairs built by the Chance Vought Aircraft Corp. of Stratford, Conn.
Neither company exists today.

Dick Phillips, a retired Northwest Airlines executive from suburban Burnsville
who writes about World War II aircraft, said he knows of only about two dozen
Corsairs of any model still flying. "I don't know of any airworthy Corsair that
sold in the last five years for less than $1 million,'' he said.

The Corsair, designed to land on aircraft carriers, is one of the most
recognizable World War II fighters, with its long fuselage, huge radial piston
engine with a large propeller and a unique inverted "gull wing'' design.


03/27/04 18:14 EST
<end>

MW

[Ron]

The Navy did the same thing too after some people pulled some planes WW2
aircraft out of the gulf of mexico.

Seems rather silly to me.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Ron) wrote:

> The Navy did the same thing too after some people pulled some planes WW2
> aircraft out of the gulf of mexico.
>
> Seems rather silly to me.
>
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>

As the saying goes, "The Navy is 200 years of tradition unhampered by
progress."

[Matt Wiser]

(Mike Weeks) wrote:
>From the AP:
>
><start>
>Navy Sues Civilian for Return of Plane
>
>..c The Associated Press
>
>MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The federal government has
>filed a lawsuit against an
>airplane collector demanding the return of the
>wreckage of a World War II
>Corsair fighter that the Navy abandoned after
>it crashed in a North Carolina
>swamp in 1944.
>
>Historical airplane enthusiasts say the plane
>Lex Cralley dug out of the swamp
>near the North Carolina coast is the only one
>of its kind known to still exist.
>
>Cralley, an airplane mechanic with a passion
>for preserving World War II
>aviation history, salvaged the pieces of the
>single-engine plane in 1990,
>registered it as a ''non-airworthy model'' with
>the Federal Aviation
>Administration and began the painstaking work
>of restoration, which remains far
>from completion.
>
>The Justice Department sued Cralley on behalf
>of the Navy on Wednesday, seeking
>the plane, the cost of returning it and compensation
>for any damage since
>Cralley recovered it.
>
>Cralley said Friday he will defend himself,
>but acknowledged that the suit has
>rattled him.
>
>"I'm just a little guy,'' said Cralley, 49,
>of Princeton, north of Minneapolis.
>"I have no wealth, work for a living, have four
>kids.''
>
>The lawsuit doesn't say why the plane is important
>to the Navy. "We're not
>going to provide anything more than what we'll
>be saying in court,'' said
>Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice
>Department's civil division in
>Washington.
>
>Cralley said the government contacted him about
>five years ago to see about
>getting the plane back, and suggested an exchange
>with the National Museum of
>Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Fla. He declined
>to elaborate Saturday, citing the
>lawsuit.
>
>Airplane buffs say Cralley's plane is the only
>known survivor of one particular
>model of Corsair, a "Brewster F3A-1,'' built
>by the Brewster Aeronautical Corp.
>of Long Island City, N.Y. Brewster turned out
>735, compared to more than 12,000
>F4U Corsairs built by the Chance Vought Aircraft
>Corp. of Stratford, Conn.
>Neither company exists today.
>
>Dick Phillips, a retired Northwest Airlines
>executive from suburban Burnsville
>who writes about World War II aircraft, said
>he knows of only about two dozen
>Corsairs of any model still flying. "I don't
>know of any airworthy Corsair that
>sold in the last five years for less than $1
>million,'' he said.
>
>The Corsair, designed to land on aircraft carriers,
>is one of the most
>recognizable World War II fighters, with its
>long fuselage, huge radial piston
>engine with a large propeller and a unique inverted
>"gull wing'' design.
>
>
>03/27/04 18:14 EST
><end>
>
>MW
What's the point in the suit? Does the Navy want to put the plane on display
at Pensacola? Or is it just a grab of a potentially flyable aircraft like
they've done with some of the Lake Michigan aircraft?

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[montgomery_scott]

Mikey! are y'pretending to'be something you're not with the readership
ON THIS THREAD also????

Mike Weeks.... a treasonous coward and traitor to his fellow
countrymen

...and he was caught pretending to be a "jet jock"...he's fallen silent
about 30 times over since he's been caught BSing about himself

AND HE'S ASSOCIATED WITH A POLITICAL MOVEMENT KNOWN AS "ZIONISM"...

AND MIKEY...ALONG WITH AN AUTHOR NAMED "A JAY CRISTOL"...WHO also
PRETENDED TO BE A "JET FIGHTER PILOT" WHO "FLEW COMBAT MISSIONS IN THE
FAR EAST" DURING THE KOREAN WAR are the point men in covering up the
murder of the crew of the USS Liberty by the Government of Israel on
June 8, 1967 AS EVIDENCED BY the statements of:

1)the CIA Director at the time of the attack, Richard Helms

2)the lowest land-based NSA official in charge of the USS Liberty's
mission, Oliver Kirby

3)Kirby's superiors and successors at the NSA

4)Ward Boston, the chief legal counsel of the Naval Court of
Inquiry(who didn't bull**** about his experience as a "naval aviator",
Mikey...like YOU and A. Jay Cristol have)

5)Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations at the time of the
attack...the ONLY individual ever to have served as Commander of BOTH
the Atalntic and Pacific fleets and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff(who ALSO didn't bull**** about his experience as a "naval
aviator", Mikey...like YOU and A. Jay Cristol have)



(Mikey and A.Jay don't like the names of these officials all listed at
once--they prefer to call each of them "liars" severally...and "liars"
they TRULY are... there never has been a "coverup" in the history of
the world where a lie HASN'T BEEN TOLD... they're liars who have come
forward to clean their consciences before they died AND BECAUSE Israel
attempted to formalize

we'll talk about these individuals statements in depth a little bit
more in the next few days...but first LET'S embarrass Mikey on this
thread...

Mikey Weeks of the "Data Entry Squadron" who bragged about being a
"jet jock" and refuses to post the hyperlink where Kevin Brooks caught
him...

yes, Mikey...new friends t'see you for the cowardly bull****ter that
you TRULY are...



MIKE WEEKS, USS LIBERTY USS LIBERTY MURDERS ISRAEL AHRON JAY CRISTOL
A. JAY CRISTOL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL GOI IDF THE LIBERTY INCIDENT
ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY JIM ENNES JAMES ENNES JAMES A. ENNES JOE
MEADORS WAR CRIME stan engel shipfixr dn roberta hatch sheldon
lieberman little_people Ward Boston Admiral Thomas Moorer Robert
McNamara LBJ 30mm with proximity fusing 30mm cannon with
proximity fusing 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing


>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."
>
> Bwaaaaahaaa! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> C'mon mikey... tell an old scot your qualifications, laddie!


Joe...perhaps the Zionist shills would prefer the $10,000 reward to be
offerred for the:

1)production of a 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing using
materials available in 1967!!!!

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...<snicker>


2)the production of the joystick of the jet fighter craft that A. Jay
Cristol used while he was flying all of those combat missions in the
Far East during the Korean War

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...

3)the production of the documentation outling Cristol's service in
Naval Intelligence!!!

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...

4) the hyperlink where Zionist shill Mike Weeks explains to the google
readership what Weeks's qualifications as a Naval ...ahem... "jet
fighter pilot" from the "Data Entry Squadron were!!!!

REMENBER THE POST WHERE KEVIN BROOKS CAUGHT MIKE WEEKS BULL****TING
ABOUT BEING A "JET FIGHTER PILOT" WHEN IN REALITY HE WAS A "COMPUTER
OPERATOR" FROM "THE DATA ENTRY SQUADRON"...HERE IT IS FAITHFULLY
REPRODUCED...


>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."







Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!






(Mike Weeks) wrote in message >...
> From the AP:
>
> <start>
> Navy Sues Civilian for Return of Plane
>
> .c The Associated Press
>
> MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The federal government has filed a lawsuit against an
> airplane collector demanding the return of the wreckage of a World War II
> Corsair fighter that the Navy abandoned after it crashed in a North Carolina
> swamp in 1944.
>
> Historical airplane enthusiasts say the plane Lex Cralley dug out of the swamp
> near the North Carolina coast is the only one of its kind known to still exist.
>
> Cralley, an airplane mechanic with a passion for preserving World War II
> aviation history, salvaged the pieces of the single-engine plane in 1990,
> registered it as a ''non-airworthy model'' with the Federal Aviation
> Administration and began the painstaking work of restoration, which remains far
> from completion.
>
> The Justice Department sued Cralley on behalf of the Navy on Wednesday, seeking
> the plane, the cost of returning it and compensation for any damage since
> Cralley recovered it.
>
> Cralley said Friday he will defend himself, but acknowledged that the suit has
> rattled him.
>
> "I'm just a little guy,'' said Cralley, 49, of Princeton, north of Minneapolis.
> "I have no wealth, work for a living, have four kids.''
>
> The lawsuit doesn't say why the plane is important to the Navy. "We're not
> going to provide anything more than what we'll be saying in court,'' said
> Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department's civil division in
> Washington.
>
> Cralley said the government contacted him about five years ago to see about
> getting the plane back, and suggested an exchange with the National Museum of
> Naval Aviation in Pensacola, Fla. He declined to elaborate Saturday, citing the
> lawsuit.
>
> Airplane buffs say Cralley's plane is the only known survivor of one particular
> model of Corsair, a "Brewster F3A-1,'' built by the Brewster Aeronautical Corp.
> of Long Island City, N.Y. Brewster turned out 735, compared to more than 12,000
> F4U Corsairs built by the Chance Vought Aircraft Corp. of Stratford, Conn.
> Neither company exists today.
>
> Dick Phillips, a retired Northwest Airlines executive from suburban Burnsville
> who writes about World War II aircraft, said he knows of only about two dozen
> Corsairs of any model still flying. "I don't know of any airworthy Corsair that
> sold in the last five years for less than $1 million,'' he said.
>
> The Corsair, designed to land on aircraft carriers, is one of the most
> recognizable World War II fighters, with its long fuselage, huge radial piston
> engine with a large propeller and a unique inverted "gull wing'' design.
>
>
> 03/27/04 18:14 EST
> <end>
>
> MW

[Mike Weeks]

>From: Orval Fairbairn
>Date: 3/27/2004 20:46 Pacific Standard Time

>In article >,
> (Ron) wrote:
>
>> The Navy did the same thing too after some people pulled some planes WW2
>> aircraft out of the gulf of mexico.
>>
>> Seems rather silly to me.
>>
>>
>> Ron
>> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>>
>
>As the saying goes, "The Navy is 200 years of tradition unhampered by
>progress."

I think its just that the USG never gives up "anything" unless it states so in
very specific language. This isn't the first time it's taken such action, as
noted above.

MW

[Jim Yanik]

(Mike Weeks) wrote in
:

>>From: Orval Fairbairn
>>Date: 3/27/2004 20:46 Pacific Standard Time
>
>>In article >,
>> (Ron) wrote:
>>
>>> The Navy did the same thing too after some people pulled some planes
>>> WW2 aircraft out of the gulf of mexico.
>>>
>>> Seems rather silly to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>>>
>>
>>As the saying goes, "The Navy is 200 years of tradition unhampered by
>>progress."
>
> I think its just that the USG never gives up "anything" unless it
> states so in very specific language. This isn't the first time it's
> taken such action, as noted above.
>
> MW
>

Yes,it's cheaper (and easier)to let someone else do the
extraction/restoration,then confiscate it.
Then charge them for messing with their abandoned property.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Mike Williamson]

Matt Wiser wrote:

>
> What's the point in the suit? Does the Navy want to put the plane on display
> at Pensacola? Or is it just a grab of a potentially flyable aircraft like
> they've done with some of the Lake Michigan aircraft?
>
> Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!


Probably neither- the Navy almost certainly has no interest in flying
the aircraft, and would never have gone to the trouble of recovering the
aircraft on its own.

This is more along the lines of simply defending a point of law, on
the theory that if they don't, then eventually they lose the protection
of that law. It is on the order of copyright or trademark enforcement,
or even the Executive Branch's current spat with the Legislature over
giving sworn testimony over a matter of government policy- they aren't
willing to set a precedent which could come back and haunt them in
some later matter.

Mike

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 28 Mar 2004 12:02:09 -0800,
montgomery_scott attempted to say .....

>
> Mikey! are y'pretending to'be something you're not with the readership
> ON THIS THREAD also????


Someone's off their meds I'd say...


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Lyle]

On 28 Mar 2004 21:33:14 GMT, (Mike Weeks) wrote:

>>From: Orval Fairbairn
>>Date: 3/27/2004 20:46 Pacific Standard Time
>
>>In article >,
>> (Ron) wrote:
>>
>>> The Navy did the same thing too after some people pulled some planes WW2
>>> aircraft out of the gulf of mexico.
>>>
>>> Seems rather silly to me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>>>
>>
>>As the saying goes, "The Navy is 200 years of tradition unhampered by
>>progress."
>
>I think its just that the USG never gives up "anything" unless it states so in
>very specific language. This isn't the first time it's taken such action, as
>noted above.
>
>MW
could it be to prevent anybody from possibly disturbing a possible
ship wreck/plane crash that also doubles as a coffin/cementary? Him
removing the fighter would probably be the equivilent to somebody
raising the Monitor or Arizona. Just a thought.

[Mike Weeks]

>From: Lyle
>Date: 3/29/2004 04:07 Pacific Standard Time

>On 28 Mar 2004 21:33:14 GMT, (Mike Weeks) wrote:
>
>>>From: Orval Fairbairn
>>>Date: 3/27/2004 20:46 Pacific Standard Time
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> (Ron) wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Navy did the same thing too after some people pulled some planes WW2
>>>> aircraft out of the gulf of mexico.
>>>>
>>>> Seems rather silly to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron
>>>> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>>>>
>>>
>>>As the saying goes, "The Navy is 200 years of tradition unhampered by
>>>progress."
>>
>>I think its just that the USG never gives up "anything" unless it states so
>in
>>very specific language. This isn't the first time it's taken such action,
>as
>>noted above.

>could it be to prevent anybody from possibly disturbing a possible
>ship wreck/plane crash that also doubles as a coffin/cementary? Him
>removing the fighter would probably be the equivilent to somebody
>raising the Monitor or Arizona. Just a thought.

While that indeed can be a reason, in this case, as w/ many other aircraft
wreckage sites, that doesn't appear to apply. From another article on the
subject:

"In fact, the plane that crashed in North Carolina on Dec. 19, 1944,
was on a training flight from the Cherry Point Marine Corps Training
Station. The pilot died and Navy personnel stripped the downed
aircraft of its weapons and other equipment before leaving it,
according to people familiar with the history of the plane."

In addition if one thinks about what has been USG policy in general; it's to
return discovered remains for a proper burial. For a states-side crash that
wouldn't seem to be an issue.

As has been stated by others, it's the actual wreck itself that the gov't
claims to own -- still.

MW

[Jim Yanik]

(Mike Weeks) wrote in
:

>>From: Lyle
>>Date: 3/29/2004 04:07 Pacific Standard Time
>
>>On 28 Mar 2004 21:33:14 GMT, (Mike Weeks) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: Orval Fairbairn
>>>>Date: 3/27/2004 20:46 Pacific Standard Time
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> (Ron) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Navy did the same thing too after some people pulled some
>>>>> planes WW2 aircraft out of the gulf of mexico.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems rather silly to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron
>>>>> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As the saying goes, "The Navy is 200 years of tradition unhampered
>>>>by progress."
>>>
>>>I think its just that the USG never gives up "anything" unless it
>>>states so
>>in
>>>very specific language. This isn't the first time it's taken such
>>>action,
>>as
>>>noted above.
>
>>could it be to prevent anybody from possibly disturbing a possible
>>ship wreck/plane crash that also doubles as a coffin/cementary? Him
>>removing the fighter would probably be the equivilent to somebody
>>raising the Monitor or Arizona. Just a thought.
>
> While that indeed can be a reason, in this case, as w/ many other
> aircraft wreckage sites, that doesn't appear to apply. From another
> article on the subject:
>
> "In fact, the plane that crashed in North Carolina on Dec. 19, 1944,
> was on a training flight from the Cherry Point Marine Corps Training
> Station. The pilot died and Navy personnel stripped the downed
> aircraft of its weapons and other equipment before leaving it,
> according to people familiar with the history of the plane."
>
> In addition if one thinks about what has been USG policy in general;
> it's to return discovered remains for a proper burial. For a
> states-side crash that wouldn't seem to be an issue.
>
> As has been stated by others, it's the actual wreck itself that the
> gov't claims to own -- still.
>
> MW
>

What happened to those abandoned P-38s that were under ice in
Greenland,that some entepreneur was recovering? Did the US Navy take those
back? Or request some legal transfer of ownership?

Did the guy ever get any P-38s out of there?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Jim Yanik > writes:
>
> What happened to those abandoned P-38s that were under ice in
> Greenland,that some entepreneur was recovering? Did the US Navy take those
> back? Or request some legal transfer of ownership?
>
> Did the guy ever get any P-38s out of there?

One of the P-38s has not only been recovered, but is now flying as
"Glacier Girl" (N5757).

The big difference there is that the P-38 wasn't a Navy-owned
aircraft. The U.S. Army/U.S.A.F> isn't as tetchy on the subject as
the Navy is.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[MLenoch]

>From: Jim Yanik

>Did the guy ever get any P-38s out of there?

Where have you been? One of the P-38s has been flying for the past year.
Beside, the P-38 was Army Air Corps not NAVY.
VL

[Felger Carbon]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> What happened to those abandoned P-38s that were under ice in
> Greenland,that some entepreneur was recovering? Did the US Navy take
those
> back? Or request some legal transfer of ownership?

**Navy** P-38s?? ;-)

[Mike Weeks]

>From: (Peter Stickney)
>Date: 3/29/2004 17:50 Pacific Standard Time
....
>The big difference there is that the P-38 wasn't a Navy-owned
>aircraft. The U.S. Army/U.S.A.F> isn't as tetchy on the subject as
>the Navy is.

Which brings up an interesting question in it's own right. Why might that be
the case?

MW

[John Keeney]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> What happened to those abandoned P-38s that were under ice in
> Greenland,that some entepreneur was recovering? Did the US Navy take those
> back? Or request some legal transfer of ownership?
>
> Did the guy ever get any P-38s out of there?

The one P-38 was recovered years ago, I believe it was '92.
After about ten years of restoration it now flies in air shows
out of south eastern Kentucky as "Glacier Girl".
I believe the web site is http://www.thelostsquadron.com/

This wasn't a Navy plane but a USAAF/USAF plane when it
was abandoned. It and the other P-38s and the B-17 with
them were deeded over to Denmark(?) as Greenland was their
territory. The recovery rights to the planes were obtained
from there.
There have been others since then wishing to recover more
of the planes but no more expeditions have made it to the ice
that I'm aware of. One possible reason is the cost, I was told
by one of the guys involved that the recovery and restoration
totaled about the twice the cost of an open market purchase.

[montgomery_scott]

MIKE WEEKS, USS LIBERTY USS LIBERTY MURDERS ISRAEL AHRON JAY CRISTOL
A. JAY CRISTOL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL GOI IDF THE LIBERTY INCIDENT
ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY JIM ENNES JAMES ENNES JAMES A. ENNES JOE
MEADORS WAR CRIME stan engel shipfixr dn roberta hatch sheldon
lieberman little_people Ward Boston Admiral Thomas Moorer Robert
McNamara LBJ 30mm with proximity fusing 30mm cannon with
proximity fusing 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing


>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."
>
> Bwaaaaahaaa! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> C'mon mikey... tell an old scot your qualifications, laddie!



Tank Fixer > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> on 28 Mar 2004 12:02:09 -0800,
> montgomery_scott attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > Mikey! are y'pretending to'be something you're not with the readership
> > ON THIS THREAD also????
>
>
> Someone's off their meds I'd say...

Accch! m'wee bairn... I'll give y'warp factor eight and maybe a wee
bit more...

> Someone's off their meds I'd say...

You're no giving credit where credit is due, m'wee bairn.... "somebody
being off their meds" implies an organic basis for a true clinical
condition...

AS OPPOSED TO

>Somebody's off their ROCKER I'd say

would give the proper amount of credit to someone who has worked hard
to perfect his "messianic delusions of grandeur"...(my motions are a
wee bit "mechanical" as i suppinate my palms and roll my eyes
heavenward, laddie...but w'practice and an attitude of dedication I'll
have it perfected soon)....

....but as of yet, I haven't been able to delude myself into believing
I was a "jet fighter pilot" like Mike Weeks who got caught by Kevin
Brooks bull****ting about his military accomplishments...

HERE IS THE POST:
>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."
>
> Bwaaaaahaaa! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> C'mon mikey... tell an old scot your qualifications, laddie!


Joe...perhaps the Zionist shills would prefer the $10,000 reward to be
offerred for the:

1)production of a 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing using
materials available in 1967!!!!

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...<snicker>


2)the production of the joystick of the jet fighter craft that A. Jay
Cristol used while he was flying all of those combat missions in the
Far East during the Korean War

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...

3)the production of the documentation outling Cristol's service in
Naval Intelligence!!!

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...

4) the hyperlink where Zionist shill Mike Weeks explains to the google
readership what Weeks's qualifications as a Naval ...ahem... "jet
fighter pilot" from the "Data Entry Squadron were!!!!

REMENBER THE POST WHERE KEVIN BROOKS CAUGHT MIKE WEEKS BULL****TING
ABOUT BEING A "JET FIGHTER PILOT" WHEN IN REALITY HE WAS A "COMPUTER
OPERATOR" FROM "THE DATA ENTRY SQUADRON"...HERE IT IS FAITHFULLY
REPRODUCED...


>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."







Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!

[montgomery_scott]

MIKE WEEKS, USS LIBERTY USS LIBERTY MURDERS ISRAEL AHRON JAY CRISTOL
A. JAY CRISTOL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL GOI IDF THE LIBERTY INCIDENT
ASSAULT ON THE LIBERTY JIM ENNES JAMES ENNES JAMES A. ENNES JOE
MEADORS WAR CRIME stan engel shipfixr dn roberta hatch sheldon
lieberman little_people Ward Boston Admiral Thomas Moorer Robert
McNamara LBJ 30mm with proximity fusing 30mm cannon with
proximity fusing 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing


>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."
>
> Bwaaaaahaaa! LOL!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> C'mon mikey... tell an old scot your qualifications, laddie!




(Mike Weeks) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Peter Stickney)
> >Date: 3/29/2004 17:50 Pacific Standard Time
> ...
> >The big difference there is that the P-38 wasn't a Navy-owned
> >aircraft. The U.S. Army/U.S.A.F> isn't as tetchy on the subject as
> >the Navy is.
>
> Which brings up an interesting question in it's own right. Why might that be
> the case?

WHICH BRINGS UP A GOOD QUESTION IN ITS OWN RIGHT. WHMIGHT THAT BE THE
CASE, MIKEY THAT YOU BULL****TED ABOUT BEING A "JET FIGHTER PILOT"???

....AND THEN...<snicker>... RAN AWAY FROM YOUR OWN WORDS WHEN Kevin
Brooks called you on it???

Bwaaahhhhaaa! ROTFLMAO!!! LOL!!!
>
> MW



Joe...perhaps the Zionist shills would prefer the $10,000 reward to be
offerred for the:

1)production of a 30mm cannon shell with proximity fusing using
materials available in 1967!!!!

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...<snicker>


2)the production of the joystick of the jet fighter craft that A. Jay
Cristol used while he was flying all of those combat missions in the
Far East during the Korean War

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...

3)the production of the documentation outling Cristol's service in
Naval Intelligence!!!

Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!



or maybe...

4) the hyperlink where Zionist shill Mike Weeks explains to the google
readership what Weeks's qualifications as a Naval ...ahem... "jet
fighter pilot" from the "Data Entry Squadron were!!!!

REMENBER THE POST WHERE KEVIN BROOKS CAUGHT MIKE WEEKS BULL****TING
ABOUT BEING A "JET FIGHTER PILOT" WHEN IN REALITY HE WAS A "COMPUTER
OPERATOR" FROM "THE DATA ENTRY SQUADRON"...HERE IT IS FAITHFULLY
REPRODUCED...


>kevin brooks said this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl70123069d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1e6ea40d.0310150943.6c7fc8e4%40posting.google .com
>
> "No idea, but a good point. Heck, I am still waiting for ol' Mikey to
> tell me of his vast experience in dealing with "arrogant jet jockeys",
> since he made such a big deal of it. Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."


>Odd how he gets rather quiet when
> called upon his own "qualifications"."







Bwahhaaa!!!! ROTFLMAO! LOL!!!