A-4 / A-7 Question

"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message ...
"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...
"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,

says...

"Michael" wrote in message
om...

snip

Okay, so the only basis of your arguement is a 50+ year old memory
from when you were a child? Well, I guess there's no way in the
world
facts can beat that.

Facts are made up of many things. A 50 year old memory is also
fact.

No it's not. In this case, it's nothing more than a vague
recollection.

History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one.
History
is
written by the winners.

And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
history?

A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.

However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.

Several times in this thread already.

What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't
quite
agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.

No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.

And the Civil War was fought because of Slavery as taught in most Public
School Systems.

Man, I'm done with this conversation. Enjoy your fantasy P-38 world.

~Michael

Lo, many moons past, on Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:24:05 -0600, a stranger
called by some "Daryl Hunt" came forth and told this
tale in us.military.army

You are still following me around like a little puppy dog. Keep up the bad
work.

End of String.

You wish. You have been caught (again) and your list of lies grows
and grows.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

Replacement_Tommel 'SINVA LIDBABY wrote in message ...
In article , Michael says...

"Daryl Hunt" wrote in message
...

(snip)


History, as written, 50 years later may not be the correct one. History
is
written by the winners.

And this applies to this discussion how? The "winners" (who would
that be BTW?) have written the P-38 out of 50s USAF and Korean War
history?

A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.

However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.

Several times in this thread already.

What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so.

No they don't. Everything points to the P-38 being gone from USAF and
ANG service by '49, and you've offered up nothing more than a
childhood memory as evidence that this is incorrect.

~Michael

Oh c'mon Mike, you oughtta know by now that Daryl will never admit he's wrong
about anything...

After participating in this thread and reading others he's been in, I
can see that now! There should be some sorta warning about him in the
FAQ.

just add this one to where you put his super secret Soviet 3
stage SAM tall tale and move on... ;-P

Missed that one. Musta been pretty entertaining!

~Michael

Michael wrote:
Replacement_Tommel
'SINVA LIDBABY
wrote in
message ...
snip
Oh c'mon Mike, you oughtta know by now that Daryl will
never admit
he's wrong about anything...

After participating in this thread and reading others he's
been in, I
can see that now! There should be some sorta warning
about him in the
FAQ.

If you'd like to write something up, to provide others like
yourself with a warning, I'd be happy to add it to the uma
FAQ.


just add this one to where you put his super secret
Soviet 3
stage SAM tall tale and move on... ;-P

Missed that one. Musta been pretty entertaining!

It was first posted in rec.aviation.military in a thread
about the SR-71. Look it up in Google. It's a hoot he even
tried to tell a former Officer in the PVO Strany that he
didn't know what he was talking about when he claimed the
Soviets had a three stage SAM. There's also a claim in the
thread about there being a geosynchronous satellite over the
Kamchatka peninsula. It's very amusing reading.

Snark

In article ,
says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...



A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.

However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.

What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.


The ones from the USAF Office of History ?

You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
document things and keep the history of the service ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
says...

snipp..

After participating in this thread and reading others he's been in, I
can see that now! There should be some sorta warning about him in the
FAQ.



There is in the us.military.army FAQ.
Perhaps the keeper of the one for RAM should add a section.... ?



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:59:44 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tank Fixer came
forth and told this tale in us.military.army

In article ,
says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.

However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.

What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.

The ones from the USAF Office of History ?

You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
document things and keep the history of the service ?

A friend of mine came uo with a possible solution. Matbe someone
threw a P-38 can opener at Daryl, hitiing him in the head and giving
him all sorts of delusions.

--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

WE *ARE* UMA
Lemmings 404 Local

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:13:32 GMT, Douglas Berry
wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:59:44 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tank Fixer came
forth and told this tale in us.military.army

In article ,
says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.

However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.

What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.

The ones from the USAF Office of History ?

You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
document things and keep the history of the service ?

A friend of mine came uo with a possible solution. Matbe someone
threw a P-38 can opener at Daryl, hitiing him in the head and giving
him all sorts of delusions.

nah...it must have been a can of beanie weanies from an old C rat
package...you know, one of the cans that gave the P 38 opener it's
name...

ck
--
The Ten Commandments display was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court
building, But here was a good reason for the move.*

You can't post "Thou Shalt Not Steal" in a building full of lawyers and
politicians without creating a hostile work environment.

Edna H. on alt.books.m-lackey, 20030930

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:13:32 GMT, Douglas Berry wrote:

Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:59:44 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tank Fixer came
forth and told this tale in us.military.army

In article ,
says...

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...

A 50 year old memory is nothing more than that.

However research in the records has show you to be incorrect.

What the records have shown is that there is many records that don't quite
agree. They disagree by a couple of years or so. If any historian were to
publish where they couldn't quite get the dates correct throughout their
accounting you would be the first to throw it out. But since you enjoy
following me around like a little puppy, I guess that doesn't apply here.

The ones from the USAF Office of History ?

You remember those folks ? The ons in you're former service paid to
document things and keep the history of the service ?

A friend of mine came uo with a possible solution. Matbe someone
threw a P-38 can opener at Daryl, hitiing him in the head and giving
him all sorts of delusions.

I suppose he could have seen some transient P-61s ?

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:13:32 GMT, Douglas Berry wrote:


I suppose he could have seen some transient P-61s ?

Al Minyard

Based on a mention of F-82s in service at the time, I'd guess that
a flight of F-82s (night/all weather types, with the central radar
pod) might have been mistaken for P-38s. Two booms, with a central
pod might be mistaken for a P-38 in the right circumstances, given
the similar planforms.

Mike