VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

"DDAY" wrote in message
ink.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.

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article et,
mumbled
----------
In article . net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
publishing
it to the web.

Actually, that's not true.

Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the net
and not get in trouble ?

I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person showing
some
kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere else
or
dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind
direction.


Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke loaded
Phantom. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts get in
the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
together soon.

There is no question that F-4's darried nukes.
The point of contention was your claim they were called "FB-4"

No one every supported that claim.


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article . net,
mumbled
----------
In article
. net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide
concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition
guide
needlessly
restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from
being
accurate.


Needlessly restricted ?
That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a
publications
account
with USAPA

It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can look
up
the
post
at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government Bulletin.

It is FOUO.
If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
publishing
it to the web.

You can't request classified publications from USAPA.
While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are prone to hype
things.

The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you don't know a
damned
thing about that so you try to move it away into your area of
expertise;
trolling on a non related subject.

Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is classified.
I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an account with
USAPA.


You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft recognition,
since
you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron strength in the
mid
1950's
A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late 40's.




The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4 mistaking it for a
Mig-21
while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the last to make
that
mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So you think
it's
easy?
Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will do us better
to
go
over to the other side and help them.

P-38...

Tell us again daryl...

And you have yet to show me wrong. Now, I suggest you provide the proof
that
I was incorrect once and for all. But that would curtail your EID
attacks,
now wouldn't it, Achmed.

Any number of people pointed out actual USAF documents that showed the
P38 left unit service in the late 1940's.

And you know that there were no P-38s left in ANY Air Guard Unit anywhere in
1953? I was told during Tech School that there were NO C-124 Globemasters
left in the Active Duty AF and to just learn enough to pass the test. The
instructors said they just didn't get the time to get it out of the
coriculum. Guess what, a few years later, I was at Elmendorf AFB, AK up to
my asses with two of them. And the Actives kept a whole lot better records
and new AC than the Air Guards did back then. But don't let a little
paperwork get in your way of a good lie.

Not my fault you got exiled to Alaska.
Not suprising given your abrasive nature.




If you are too dense to admit the facts it's not my fault.

And you visited each and every Air Guard Unit in 1953 to verify this fact?
Hell, kid you weren't even a gleem in your daddy's eye yet.

So it should be fairly easy for you to cite which Guard unit was still
flying them in squadron strenght in 1953..



Simple fact is if there were any in squadron service in the mid-50's you
could easily provide the unti they were assigned to.

LOL, you sure believe in everything you read on the internet. Of course,
only those items that bolster your fairytale.

Since my sources include the USAF site at Maxwell you might wish to
reconsider your bluster.



I don't need to prove they were not there, you need to prove the USAF or
any of it's entities were still operating any by that time.

Actually, yes you do. Us old hands know that the Guards got the junk back
then. Yes, the handmedowns. So prove it otherwise, But remember, I worked
on much of the Guards Junk on TDYs in the 70s that you will claim they never
had. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good lie.



--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

Daryl Hunt wrote:

"DDAY" wrote in message
ink.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

"redc1c4" wrote ...


tell us again about the Air Force flying P-38's in the 1950's.


I'd like to have seen them too.

Unfortunately, both of my print sources claim "Neba Hachee", with one of
them maintaining that P-38s, even a few scattered photo birds, were gone
from active service long before 1950 (1946 withdrawn from squadron service),
and were not assigned to Air Guard units. The reasons were twofold. 1.
The P-51s, line dup in vast quantities on ramps around the world had
equivalent range and performance (along with a lower accident rate). & 2.
Even more important, those two turning made the Lighting an expensive gas
hog, a real problem with post war cutbacks.

P-51s remained in Air Guard Service into the mid50s, but the only P-38s
around were a handful of privately owned Pylon racers and the dusty ones
parked in boneyards like Davis Monathan.

I guess I saw the last of the TB-25s used for navigator training at James
Connally AFB, Texas, plus what must have been one of the last operational
sorties by a P-47, Haitian AF, off Haiti's coast in 1963, plus later that
year, Spanish versions of the He111 and a real Ju52 operating out of Palma,
Majorca.

In early 1942, when I was a little over 2, I am told a P-38 crashed across
the street from our house on Pont Loma (overlooking the then empty flats of
Mission Bay). I remember the excitement, but wasn't up on P-38s back then.
My old friend and infrequent story teller, Paul Murphy of Clifton, TX,
passed last year, one of those pilots who survived combat tours in P-39s and
P-38s in the South Pacific.

We still have an "operational" B-26 (not the old Marauder) and a TBF flying
around here. On its rare flights, the B-26 takes off across the lake and
passing over my ridgetop at less than 1000'. Loud!

Prop-driven memories....The sound of a sortie of A1Hs flying off the deck of
CVA-38. Sort of an ear-splitting stream if you had forgotten to close the
hatch to the Port Wing and Vultures' Row.

TMO

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news In article ,

mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article
. net,
mumbled
----------
In article
. net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the
guide
concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition
guide
needlessly
restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it
from
being
accurate.


Needlessly restricted ?
That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a
publications
account
with USAPA

It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can
look
up
the
post
at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government
Bulletin.

It is FOUO.
If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
publishing
it to the web.

You can't request classified publications from USAPA.
While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are prone to
hype
things.

The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you don't
know a
damned
thing about that so you try to move it away into your area of
expertise;
trolling on a non related subject.

Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is
classified.
I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an account with
USAPA.


You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft recognition,
since
you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron strength in
the
mid
1950's
A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late 40's.




The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4 mistaking it
for a
Mig-21
while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the last to
make
that
mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So you think
it's
easy?
Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will do us
better
to
go
over to the other side and help them.

P-38...

Tell us again daryl...

And you have yet to show me wrong. Now, I suggest you provide the
proof
that
I was incorrect once and for all. But that would curtail your EID
attacks,
now wouldn't it, Achmed.

Any number of people pointed out actual USAF documents that showed the
P38 left unit service in the late 1940's.

And you know that there were no P-38s left in ANY Air Guard Unit
anywhere in
1953? I was told during Tech School that there were NO C-124
Globemasters
left in the Active Duty AF and to just learn enough to pass the test.
The
instructors said they just didn't get the time to get it out of the
coriculum. Guess what, a few years later, I was at Elmendorf AFB, AK up
to
my asses with two of them. And the Actives kept a whole lot better
records
and new AC than the Air Guards did back then. But don't let a little
paperwork get in your way of a good lie.

Not my fault you got exiled to Alaska.
Not suprising given your abrasive nature.




If you are too dense to admit the facts it's not my fault.

And you visited each and every Air Guard Unit in 1953 to verify this
fact?
Hell, kid you weren't even a gleem in your daddy's eye yet.

So it should be fairly easy for you to cite which Guard unit was still
flying them in squadron strenght in 1953..



Simple fact is if there were any in squadron service in the mid-50's
you
could easily provide the unti they were assigned to.

LOL, you sure believe in everything you read on the internet. Of course,
only those items that bolster your fairytale.

Since my sources include the USAF site at Maxwell you might wish to
reconsider your bluster.

Nope, your site only cites what was in the ACTIVE DUTY Air Force and has
nothing to do with the Air National Guard during the early 50s. You are
just lying to suit your own story.




I don't need to prove they were not there, you need to prove the USAF
or
any of it's entities were still operating any by that time.

Actually, yes you do. Us old hands know that the Guards got the junk
back
then. Yes, the handmedowns. So prove it otherwise, But remember, I
worked
on much of the Guards Junk on TDYs in the 70s that you will claim they
never
had. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good lie.



--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news

snip

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke loaded
Phantom.

Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5 when Ed
wrote the following:

The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational support
for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of the
cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with
nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing converted
to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to standardize
E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat Victor
in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF.

He's already stated he has.

Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of it
referred to as an FB-4.

But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your lies.

He's recycling the very things you yourself have said.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article et,
mumbled
----------
In article
. net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
publishing
it to the web.

Actually, that's not true.

Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the
net
and not get in trouble ?

I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person
showing
some
kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere
else
or
dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind
direction.


Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of
the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess
you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke
loaded
Phantom. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts get
in
the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
together soon.

There is no question that F-4's darried nukes.
The point of contention was your claim they were called "FB-4"

No one every supported that claim.

McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
wrong and you are right?

Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.

"redc1c4" wrote in message
...
Daryl Hunt wrote:

"DDAY" wrote in message
ink.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.... %-)

You prove me wrong. You have yet to do that. You weren't even a twinkle in
your daddy's eye in 53.

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news

snip

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess
you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke
loaded
Phantom.

Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5 when
Ed
wrote the following:

The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational support
for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of the
cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with
nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing converted
to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to standardize
E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat Victor
in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF.

He's already stated he has.

Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of it
referred to as an FB-4.

But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your lies.

He's recycling the very things you yourself have said.

Yes he is. And he's trying to hide the fact he's just a low level troll.
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered once
again. I thought you had given up on that. Well, you just got demoted back
to the dismal 404thk00ks. Nice job. You are now wide open for any and all
criticism that comes their way. Guess you will never learn.