On May 3, 4:13 pm, Vince wrote:
TMOliver wrote:
"Vince" wrote in message
...
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" wrote:
"Daryl Hunt" wrote ...
Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two
links
that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959.
But
don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member
of
the
404thk00ks. You live it down well.
No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite,
one
with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in
service in
1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to
comprehend
that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in
inventory,
both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more
capable
a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great
enough
to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51
derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may
have
been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the
Training
Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and
used by
the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but
you're
going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your
agaonized
dreams before anybody will believe you...
To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement.
You're
simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought
to be
ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too
simple
minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have
all
potential credibility.
TMO
http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html
A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5
was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems,
especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co-
exist.
not really
The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the
Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the
skywarrior which was a success
Vince
They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down.
By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four
sites were operational.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
Cuba was not a "battlefield"
I wouldn't want to tell that to the VFP-62 pilots flying low level photo
recon in RF8 Crusaders who (while certainly guilty of violating Cuban
airspace were being regularly fired upon with both 57mm and 23mm AA as the
transited missile sites flying "nap of the ground". The Soviets erecting
the sites seemed somewhat hostile toward being photographed.
The hostility of the environment is clear. However Reconnaissance in an
environment where you cannot openly protect your aircraft and are not
establishing targets is not a battlefield.
Vince
So the Navy low-level flights were also just CIA pilots in nNavy
flight suits?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cub...cri/photos.htm
Vince, I worked for CIA for four and a half years, I was right across
the hall from many of the people who did this work, the pilots were
Air Force, by Kennedy's request, the analysts were by and large CIA
people with a few DIA types thrown in, at a place called the National
Photographic Interpetation Center, NPIC.. All your belief doesn't make
Anderson a CIA officer, he was Air Force, the Air Force management
sold the idea of an Air Force Cross for him, the first in the Cold
War.
Live with it.