![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Vince wrote:
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" Vince Oh? Tell that to the guys who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs. -- Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians. http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 3, 4:12 pm, Paul Elliot wrote:
Vince wrote: 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" Vince Oh? Tell that to the guys who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs. -- Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians. http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ Vince is a lawyer, he thinks that if he says the same wrong thing over and over that will eventually make it true or the listeners will be asleep. The Air Force Cross given Major Anderson must have been a real goof by the Air Force and Kennedy. http://cworld.clemson.edu/Fall2000/12thday.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 4:12 pm, Paul Elliot wrote: Vince wrote: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ Vince is a lawyer, he thinks that if he says the same wrong thing over and over that will eventually make it true or the listeners will be asleep. The Air Force Cross given Major Anderson must have been a real goof by the Air Force and Kennedy. http://cworld.clemson.edu/Fall2000/12thday.htm There is nothing that prevents the president from giving a medal to an air force officer flying for the CIA He was unquestionably engaged in an activity that was a violation of international law. He could not have been "ordered" on the mission. Vince |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Vince" wrote in message
... Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 4:12 pm, Paul Elliot wrote: Vince wrote: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ Vince is a lawyer, he thinks that if he says the same wrong thing over and over that will eventually make it true or the listeners will be asleep. The Air Force Cross given Major Anderson must have been a real goof by the Air Force and Kennedy. http://cworld.clemson.edu/Fall2000/12thday.htm There is nothing that prevents the president from giving a medal to an air force officer flying for the CIA He was unquestionably engaged in an activity that was a violation of international law. He could not have been "ordered" on the mission. Vince What was he in violation of, specifically? AHS |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Vince wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 4:12 pm, Paul Elliot wrote: Vince wrote: http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ Vince is a lawyer, he thinks that if he says the same wrong thing over and over that will eventually make it true or the listeners will be asleep. The Air Force Cross given Major Anderson must have been a real goof by the Air Force and Kennedy. http://cworld.clemson.edu/Fall2000/12thday.htm There is nothing that prevents the president from giving a medal to an air force officer flying for the CIA You do know that the USAF operated U2's as well? He was unquestionably engaged in an activity that was a violation of international law. He could not have been "ordered" on the mission. Um... Wrong. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Elliot wrote:
Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: Cuba was not a "battlefield" Vince Oh? Tell that to the guys who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs. we were discussing the Cuban missile crisis vince |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |