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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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." |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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." |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"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. |
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 |