If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
In article ,
mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article , mumbled but if you dig a bit deeper, you will find the old MD pages that clearly calls it a Fighter/Bomber. and the link to them is ?????? Post at least 7 years ago and 6 and 5 and 4 and 3 and 2 and 1 as well. Go find it yourself. That many times ? Wow So you should have no problem finding it and posting yet one more time and shutting up all the people here telling you that you are wrong. Or are you lying, again ? -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
In article ,
mumbled "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 wrote: Daryl Hunt wrote: "DDAY" wrote in message link.net... ---------- In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's involvement in the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified document was leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing. Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;') Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal in the United States, with a finite exception--the names of covert intelligence officers currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent and the belief in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a free press that can publish information that the government does not want released. It's a little more complicated for leaking classified information to the press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of people who do it get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired, fined, or lose their security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one person has gone to jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s. There is currently a case before the courts where the government is trying to convict two people for accepting classified information and making if public. Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question. Put it this way: Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a foreign govt. He goes to jail for espionage. Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a newspaper and gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative punishment. It is highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth remembering that top level officials leak classified information all the time. People in the White House leak information to newspapers to make the White House look better. That's how the game is played in Washington.) The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing happens to them. If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS website and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin. You'll get a sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified information. I may give them a look. Read up on the AIPAC case. If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then it's untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll. tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's. redc1c4, then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide Don't know about Air Force but this site says "late 50s" and I seem to remember some P/F-38 camera or collection aircraft associated with the JTF-8 nuke tests in the 1962 era. The Wiki cites F-4 and F-5 designations for the camera and recce version. http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/p-38.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning My Gawd, Jack, don't you DARE bring in any facts or information that disagrees with the 404thk00ks. It's just plain unnatural. Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera versions were still in military service. But you knew that already -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Tankfixer wrote:
In article , mumbled "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 wrote: Daryl Hunt wrote: "DDAY" wrote in message link.net... ---------- In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's involvement in the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified document was leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing. Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;') Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal in the United States, with a finite exception--the names of covert intelligence officers currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent and the belief in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a free press that can publish information that the government does not want released. It's a little more complicated for leaking classified information to the press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of people who do it get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired, fined, or lose their security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one person has gone to jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s. There is currently a case before the courts where the government is trying to convict two people for accepting classified information and making if public. Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question. Put it this way: Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a foreign govt. He goes to jail for espionage. Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a newspaper and gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative punishment. It is highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth remembering that top level officials leak classified information all the time. People in the White House leak information to newspapers to make the White House look better. That's how the game is played in Washington.) The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing happens to them. If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS website and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin. You'll get a sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified information. I may give them a look. Read up on the AIPAC case. If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then it's untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll. tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's. redc1c4, then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide Don't know about Air Force but this site says "late 50s" and I seem to remember some P/F-38 camera or collection aircraft associated with the JTF-8 nuke tests in the 1962 era. The Wiki cites F-4 and F-5 designations for the camera and recce version. http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/p-38.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning My Gawd, Jack, don't you DARE bring in any facts or information that disagrees with the 404thk00ks. It's just plain unnatural. Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera versions were still in military service. But you knew that already well, all i have is an email from the USAF historical section, so *obviously* we should rely on wikipedia and Duh-ryl instead..... redc1c4, after all, what could *they* know about Air Force history? %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On May 1, 12:56 am, redc1c4 wrote:
Tankfixer wrote: In article , mumbled "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message roups.com... On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 wrote: Daryl Hunt wrote: "DDAY" wrote in message link.net... ---------- In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's involvement in the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified document was leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing. Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;') Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal in the United States, with a finite exception--the names of covert intelligence officers currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent and the belief in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a free press that can publish information that the government does not want released. It's a little more complicated for leaking classified information to the press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of people who do it get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired, fined, or lose their security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one person has gone to jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s. There is currently a case before the courts where the government is trying to convict two people for accepting classified information and making if public. Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question. Put it this way: Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a foreign govt. He goes to jail for espionage. Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a newspaper and gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative punishment. It is highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth remembering that top level officials leak classified information all the time. People in the White House leak information to newspapers to make the White House look better. That's how the game is played in Washington.) The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing happens to them. If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS website and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin. You'll get a sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified information. I may give them a look. Read up on the AIPAC case. If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then it's untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll. tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's. redc1c4, then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide Don't know about Air Force but this site says "late 50s" and I seem to remember some P/F-38 camera or collection aircraft associated with the JTF-8 nuke tests in the 1962 era. The Wiki cites F-4 and F-5 designations for the camera and recce version. http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/p-38.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning My Gawd, Jack, don't you DARE bring in any facts or information that disagrees with the 404thk00ks. It's just plain unnatural. Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera versions were still in military service. But you knew that already well, all i have is an email from the USAF historical section, so *obviously* we should rely on wikipedia and Duh-ryl instead..... redc1c4, after all, what could *they* know about Air Force history? %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide Sometimes very little. The same people brought you the bombing statistics during and after WWII and Vietnam. In service to whoever was running JTF-8 in 1962 doesn't count? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Tankfixer" wrote ... mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote... mumbled there is no mention of that fact anywhere on the Internet. As usual, if it's not on the internet, it just can't exist according to you. Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ? Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point. No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He was a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF) what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that question then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for. You were 3 or 4. I doubt you can remember what he said for sure. We arn't discussing what he said. What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up. Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get it over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG. I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the subject and are now getting spanked Royal. It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then. Unless someone has a credible cite to dispute it, I'm quite comfortable claiming that with the references available to me, there were no P-38s or derivative photo-recon birds in US military service in 1953 (and that includes the Reserve and Air Guard because of the spares and upkeep requirements for the engine models and superchargers). Any single engine, prop driven photo-recon in Air Guard units would have likely been carried out with the photo-recon P-51 derivative. An a/c that Dilbert Dumbass conveniently ignores (a) in service in 1953 and (b) in some eyes easily mistook for a P-38 was the not quite legendary P-82 Twin Mustang night/AW fighter, its radar nacelle giving it a P-38ish look in some aspects. The only P-38s around in the US would have been civilian owned, not many, and most dedicated to air racing, still big in 1953. The P-38 was the first of the USAAF fighters in service at war's end to leave squadron service because of fuel consumption and the type-specific skills required to fly it well. Even P-47s lasted longer in reserve and guard service. Next Doofus will be telling us about P-63s deployed to Korea or B-18 raids on L'Orient.... TMO |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Daryl Hunt wrote:
There were many more than that but I can see you really won't believe it so why would I bother. Yes, don't bother. Given the number of original USAF and DOD designation records I have seen, none of which supports your "FB-4" BS, I will indeed not believe you. And thank you for playing "Bowling for Breadloaves" you can pick up your parting gifts at the door. Nice try, but if you want to win the r.a.m. "Crackpot of the Month" contest against Mr. Arndt, you'll have to do better :-)! Andreas |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"TMOliver" wrote in message ... "Tankfixer" wrote ... mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote... mumbled there is no mention of that fact anywhere on the Internet. As usual, if it's not on the internet, it just can't exist according to you. Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ? Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point. No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He was a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF) what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that question then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for. You were 3 or 4. I doubt you can remember what he said for sure. We arn't discussing what he said. What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up. Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get it over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG. I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the subject and are now getting spanked Royal. It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then. Unless someone has a credible cite to dispute it, I'm quite comfortable claiming that with the references available to me, there were no P-38s or derivative photo-recon birds in US military service in 1953 (and that includes the Reserve and Air Guard because of the spares and upkeep requirements for the engine models and superchargers). Any single engine, prop driven photo-recon in Air Guard units would have likely been carried out with the photo-recon P-51 derivative. An a/c that Dilbert Dumbass conveniently ignores (a) in service in 1953 and (b) in some eyes easily mistook for a P-38 was the not quite legendary P-82 Twin Mustang night/AW fighter, its radar nacelle giving it a P-38ish look in some aspects. The only P-38s around in the US would have been civilian owned, not many, and most dedicated to air racing, still big in 1953. The P-38 was the first of the USAAF fighters in service at war's end to leave squadron service because of fuel consumption and the type-specific skills required to fly it well. Even P-47s lasted longer in reserve and guard service. Next Doofus will be telling us about P-63s deployed to Korea or B-18 raids on L'Orient.... 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. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ups.com... On May 1, 12:56 am, redc1c4 wrote: Tankfixer wrote: In article , mumbled "Jack Linthicum" wrote in message roups.com... On Apr 27, 2:54 am, redc1c4 wrote: Daryl Hunt wrote: "DDAY" wrote in message link.net... ---------- In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: Look up the example of the classified history of the CIA's involvement in the Iranian coup in the 1950s. Short story: the classified document was leaked and put on the web. The government did nothing. Depends who leaks it I supose.. ;') Not really. Publishing classified material is not illegal in the United States, with a finite exception--the names of covert intelligence officers currently based overseas. This is based upon long precedent and the belief in the United States that a functioning democracy requires a free press that can publish information that the government does not want released. It's a little more complicated for leaking classified information to the press. In general, that's not actually illegal--99.999% of people who do it get an administrative punishment (i.e. they get fired, fined, or lose their security clearance). They don't go to jail. Only one person has gone to jail for this, Samuel Loring Morrison, back in the 1980s. There is currently a case before the courts where the government is trying to convict two people for accepting classified information and making if public. Whether they will be convicted of that is an open question. Put it this way: Person A, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a foreign govt. He goes to jail for espionage. Person B, a govt. employee, gives classified information to a newspaper and gets caught. He gets fired or given an administrative punishment. It is highly unlikely that he will go to jail. (And it is worth remembering that top level officials leak classified information all the time. People in the White House leak information to newspapers to make the White House look better. That's how the game is played in Washington.) The newspaper publishes classified information. Nothing happens to them. If you're interested in learning about the subject, go to the FAS website and read multiple issues of Secrecy and Government Bulletin. You'll get a sense of the limitations concerning the press and classified information. I may give them a look. Read up on the AIPAC case. If it's not on the Internet or it doesn't agree with Tinkerbelle then it's untrue. You are wasting your time with that low level troll. tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's. redc1c4, then we'll get into the *real* howlers.... %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide Don't know about Air Force but this site says "late 50s" and I seem to remember some P/F-38 camera or collection aircraft associated with the JTF-8 nuke tests in the 1962 era. The Wiki cites F-4 and F-5 designations for the camera and recce version. http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/p-38.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning My Gawd, Jack, don't you DARE bring in any facts or information that disagrees with the 404thk00ks. It's just plain unnatural. Neither one of those sources make a claim that the F-4 or F-5 camera versions were still in military service. But you knew that already well, all i have is an email from the USAF historical section, so *obviously* we should rely on wikipedia and Duh-ryl instead..... redc1c4, after all, what could *they* know about Air Force history? %-) -- "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching." Army Officer's Guide Sometimes very little. The same people brought you the bombing statistics during and after WWII and Vietnam. In service to whoever was running JTF-8 in 1962 doesn't count? Thanks for the assist, Jack but it will do no good. These are wannabe people that actually think that the movie Green Beret showed what it was really like. They actually want us to believe the "Army of One" crap. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On 26 Kwi, 06:15, "Flashnews" wrote:
Of all the attack birds the Su-22 Fitter H/G da da seems to have become the THUD of the east and is still liked by pilots in former Communist countries such as Poland that actually upgraded them. It had lots of power, carries a lot, stable as hell in bombing, adapts to all kinds of junk, handles well and maintains good. Not a digital cockpit but it was one of the best before the MiG-29 came out. Thanks for your kind words on our hardware. Actually, what Polish Air Forces still fly is Su-22M4 Fitter K. The aircraft is like a dragster lorry, needs quite a lot of space to make a turn, but indeed, can carry quite a lot. Some Japanese visitors to one of the units back in the mid-1990's were very surprised to see the only real avionics on board is... the radar. The Floggers / Fencers / Fitters and what have you have all been replaced by the Sukhoi Su-27 family and for a while the MiG-29 had trouble but now it is steaming ahead. One more mistake in the manual: among the drawings in the manual I saw only flat-nose MiG-23BM/MiG-27 version, as if large-nose variants (e.g.MiG-23MF/ML/MLD) did not exist at all. Best regards, Jacek |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US aviation hero receives RP recognition | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | November 30th 06 01:14 AM |
"Going for the Visual" | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 101 | May 18th 04 05:08 AM |
Face-recognition on UAV's | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 3 | April 15th 04 03:18 PM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |
Qn: Casein Glue recognition | Vassilios Mazis | Soaring | 0 | August 20th 03 10:00 PM |