VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

"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.

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."

"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.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:




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

Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time
or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4
nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F,
G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions.

The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the
SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:




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

Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time
or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4
nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F,
G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions.

The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the
SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

As per usual, Daryl is so BUSTED yet again!

- nilita

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:




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

Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time
or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4
nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F,
G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions.

The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the
SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111.

I have never stated that the US Air Force EVER used the term FB-4. But we
both know that the 4 comes at the end of a time that a Fighter/Bomber was
classed just that way. Of course, it was also the first Multirolled Fighter
that all others follow even today. But it's more than a bit of a stretch
not to include it as a bomber as well as a fighter since it did both roles
equally well depending on the loadout.

BTW, Ed, the 404thk00ks also stated that there was nothing ever named with a
FB yet there were more than a few. All I have stated is that the 4 met the
criteria of a FB at the time it was introduced and even MD classed it as a
FB originally.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:




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

Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time
or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4
nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F,
G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions.

The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the
SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111.

You may wish to check out that the 404thk00ks have wasted at least 7
military NGs that they have infested so be real careful about how you
interact.

This includes LAN, the resident Camp follower with the mattress strapped to
her back.

In article ,
mumbled

"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?

They certainly did call it that.
So why can't you show us where it had the designation FB-4 in USAF
service.


Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.

I ask simple questions.
Not my fault you can not asnwer them without making an ass of yourself.


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

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

"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?

They certainly did call it that.
So why can't you show us where it had the designation FB-4 in USAF
service.

I already explained why. But that was long ago and you just keep bringing
it up like the 404thk00k that you are.




Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.

I ask simple questions.
Not my fault you can not asnwer them without making an ass of yourself.

Your question is nothing more than another attempt to kill off yet another
Military Usenet Group. How many does that make now, 7 at least?

In article ,
mumbled

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

"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?

They certainly did call it that.
So why can't you show us where it had the designation FB-4 in USAF
service.

I already explained why. But that was long ago and you just keep bringing
it up like the 404thk00k that you are.

You gave some lame explanations that no one bought at the time.
And they still do not agree with you.







Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.

I ask simple questions.
Not my fault you can not asnwer them without making an ass of yourself.

Your question is nothing more than another attempt to kill off yet another
Military Usenet Group. How many does that make now, 7 at least?

0, but then we know how you like to make crap up.


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