Cat peeking out of the bag?

Well, under "critique" I understand something constructive. What you're
doing is nothing but an attack, you like it or not.

You remind me of people I have been tasked to assist in writing during
my school years. Your work is so botched it's beyond salvage. If you
want to call it an attack it is up to you. But if you really want a
full-blown critique, loan me a review copy, and I'll send it back with
my notes.


As second: your attack from amazon.com was NOT removed. Neither me nor
anybody else complained, and therefore it was not removed - as can be seen
by everybody who opens the page he
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...78422?v=glance

So, here I must conclude that you're lying.

I checked two days ago, and they were gone. Maybe they put it back at
the behest of people who read this thread?



As next, it is well-known to us that there are several readers who do not
hate that book but me - and who repeatedly attack my person by prentending
of attacking the book. The silly thing about this is that all four of them
are well-known to me: two because they plagiarized me, and two because they
attacked the book although they never read it.

I don't give a what who else you've ****ed off, but it's reassuring
its a big group and certainly growing, no doubt. You never replied
about you attacking genuine experts in this field. In this thread
alone, you've shown your typical condescending attitude towards ppl
who've been there, done that.

That poster, who I do not know personally but have had the pleasure of
reading his posts over the years, was, as I understand it, Executive
Officer of VX-4, "The Evaluators", the US Navy's fighter test
squadron. They tested and developed tactics and technolgy for the
Navy's tactical air force. He was also Commanding Officer of VF-126,
one of the elite adversary/aggressor squadrons, who no doubt were
immersed in knowledge of bad guy capabilities. From his postings, I
understand he was also posted as an Instructor Pilot in exchange with
the USAF, teaching them to fly F-4 Phantoms, not to mention long
service with the Fleet in F-4s and F-14s. Now, answer this: How is it
you know more about fighter tactics than he? You're a being a ****ing
joke, Tom Cooper. Everyone can see it, but you!


That's right: I can't play baseball.
Add to that:
1)You cannot be humbled, ever.
2)You cannot recognize superior authority in knowledge, when faced.
You only respond in personal taunts.
3)You can't penetrate Military Aviation writing in-depth. Your work is
superficial, and amaturish.
4)You won't admit errors.

Well, from exchange with him I'm sure that he is still convinced that
Iranian F-14s were not armed with AIM-7s. Would you like to join him in that
opinion?
Let's see. He was a serving general officer in one of the most
professional air forces in that region. Iraq had recieved satelite
targeting data from the US, and other military intel during that
conflict. You would think whatever intel on the F-14 they were unable
to ascertain locally, were provided to them also by Uncle Sam. Now who
do I believe, him or some egotistical amature with a very weak base
of work?

With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment about
it?
Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
library.


Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of Gillcrist's
book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
Gillcrist's name wrongly).

Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
word.

But OK. That's at least specific enough. On the page 33 of "Iran-Iraq War in
the Air, 1980-1988", there is one sentence taken from that book. On the end
of it is sign for footnote 39.... and the footnote 39 (p.54) says: "TOMCAT!
The Grumman F-14 Story, by R.Adm (USN. Ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist."

Yes, that is true. I admit I missed that piece, but that was several
months ago that I read your book. And I do remember now what I thought
as I read that book: Tom Cooper quoted and gave credit for that
single line. But how does he explain not giving credit for the several
hundred words he knocked off "Tomcat!"? I was very familiar with that
Gillchrist book and knew right away you were poaching off his volume.
It was near word-for-word plagerism.

It certainly read like the authors were presenting the information
regarding the F-14 pre-sale drama as their own. If I had pulled that
**** in class, the professor would have ripped me to shreads. The
conclusion reached in this case is that, a)He cannot write
competently; b)He flat stole those passages. Judging from what I have
seen and know of you, its 50/50 of each.

Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
other people's work.

For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.

A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.

Eventually, you ough to admit appearing pretty silly regarding this, then in
your eagerness to attack me you failed to notice that both books were
published by Schiffer Military Publishing, Atglen. Do you seriously consider
them so stupid to accept a manuscript that is plagiarising one of their
earlier books?

Well, that Iran-Iraq war book was written so poorly, I don't think
they even read it, or if they did, released it anyway, thinking it can
float on the weight of their reputation. Once you post the relevant
chapter I have asked you to, I'm going to renew my contact with
Admiral Gillchrist, and maybe he'll take it up with Schiffer.


Well, perhaps you could contact Mr. Ian Robertson (editor) and ask him. I
never got any answer regarding this.

You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
that list? Putting your writing career in a coffin is not something I
would relish (I don't hack people for the fun of it), but if that's
what you want me to do... Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
able to rub off.



When one refuses to see something with his own eyes...

He speaks from his ass-hole, like you are so prone on doing.


It is the in footnote 39 and footnote 43 of that chapter, just for
example. You're only so much involved in attempt to attack me, that you
oversaw this completely.

Should you want to continue in the same style, I'll obviously have to post
here also something like 30 other footnotes from that book...

What makes me wonder here, how would you then describe such books like "Red
Wings over Yalu", which consist of footnotes and references to almost 40%?


From what I recall, your footnotes were as shallow as the text, and
added nothing to further understanding of the topic. Vague is the word
I would employ to give name to your footnotes.



That's not the answer to question I asked. So, here again: WHERE am I "known
as plagiarizer"?

You're known as a plagerizer to me. Before I read that book, you were
known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.


And there were critiques at Amazon.com sharper
and less vile in tone than mine, yet equally truthfull. The reviews
for your book @ Amazon were near unanimous: it's bunk.

All the "critiques" are still there. Why don't you go there and see them for
yourself?


I'll take your word for it. Why is it everyone who voices their
disapproval of that God damn book has to be somehow after you? You act
like we're a cabal of sorts. Amusing.

And after
several months up there, everyone's postings were removed!

This is a lie, and you know that. Nothing was removed.

Besides, what is with the following review:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engr...o3/book7_e.asp

Wow, a review from a Canadian Military Journal. Oh golly gee wiz
Wally, I'll read it as soon as I'm finished reading the review on
bobsledding by the prestigious Kuwaiti Forum of Winter Sporting. Try
again, ace.



As you can see, I'm here, with my full name.

Oh, and who are you and what are your qualifications?

Oh little old me? I'm just a thumbsucker who likes jet books. Got any
good ones do ya?

Re. Steve Davies: Steve is meanwhile acknowledged as THE expert when it
comes to USAF F-15s, with excellent contacts within the USAF F-15C/E
circles, a number of related books, articles and even TV-shows. If he's what
you describe as "amateur", I'm gladly joining him in that status.

I thought THE expert[s] when it comes to USAF F-15s were at Nellis?
I'm happy you've given your pal a reach-around. It's absolutely
touching and a tear jerker when you folk do that. I'm sure he thinks
you're THE expert on non-aligned air arms too. ONI, AIA and DIA have
nothing on you and your posse at www.acig.org. You heard it here
first! And screw those dozens of reputable authors out there who just
don't know what the hell they're screaming about, not when ACIG.org
and Tom Cooper are around.


Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a campaign
of spreading lies about me.

Ah Yep. You got me. You won't tell on me will ya? Any other
conspiracies you care to share?


To be sincere and direct - as I always am: I don't care the least about your
opinion, nor am I trying to change it.

I'm just putting your lies straight.

You just post that stuff I asked you to, regarding the F-14 sale.
Don't you get creative now and dare add anything. Better yet, post a
scan of the pages. I'll be ready with my ****. Or you can just save us
all time and fess up. Save your rep while you can, friend. Because
once you post those jpegs, you've just flushed yourself down the hole.
But let's not let it reach that, buddy. Just tell me you messed up a
little and won't do it again, promise-to-God, cross-your-fingers
hope-to-die, and I'll get off your case.

Or just don't respond to this post, and I'll get your message. I'll
fade off, and you won't hear from me ever.


************************************************** ***********************
Tom Cooper
Freelance aviation journalist

Author:
- Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

- Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6550

- Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

- African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

- Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
************************************************** ***********************

From 102038Z Apr 88, I gather that (a), the Intel bubba's don't want to
compromise sources and (b), they're goal is to characterize the
aggressiveness of the combatants--not report news.

a) That's right. All paragraphs including any kind of indication about
sources are deleted.

b) Could be - at least in that one case. I used it, however, rather for an
example of usual style in USN reports.

As to the "ridiculous" statement, the key word that you quoted from the
message was: "DETECTED." The SPEAR document apparently contains very
little interpretation and analysis.

Well, I guess this is a matter of standpoind. IMHO, there are still enough
guesses in the Speartip I mentioned above.

You state that the Iraqi pilot and the Iranian ace had a fight that
occurred
"in full view" of Navy surface ships. What does that mean? Were USN
crews
witnesses to the fight? If so, why did the Iraqi pilot spend so many days
in his raft?

Yep; the USN witnessed the fight. Unclear is only if they actually saw it or
tracked it on their radars. AFAIK, they did not notice ejection. Two days
later the pilot was found deeper inside the Hormuz Straits by other group of
USN vessels.

On the 18 March 1988 battle, you again use the phrase "in full view"
again.
Why would you think that they would see 5 AIM-54's? Why would you believe
"rumors" over the SPEAR message? Why do you suggest some sort of
conspiracy?

First I have to correct myself he the correct date of this battle is
March 19th, 1988.

From what I've learned so far on this and the previous two days there was a
small SAG centered around USS Guam (LPH-9) in the area between Khark Island
and Bahrain. What I'm sure of is that crews of these ships have withnessed
the Iraqi three-wave strike against Khark, flown in the early morning,
morning and afternoon of 18 March 1988, then after the success of the first
Iraqi strike specific skipper of one of USN warships declared the Iraqi
attack for, "deplorable by nature", and subsequently the whole SAG turned
around. When the next Iraqi wave (flown around 09:00hr AM local time)
appeared the IRIAF interceptors were airborne and the USN warships
recorded - I don't know yet by which means (if I would know this I would not
need any documents from ONI) - firings of five AIM-54s.

Now, it's not so that I'm "believing rumours over SPEAR message": I haven't
got any corresponding documents released.

My remark was in regards to the NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr
88 which is NOT mentioning this battle from 18 March 1988, even if it
mentions a number of other, smaller engagements. If you don't mind me
repeating the content of paragraph 5:

THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE WENT FOR OVER A YEAR FROM OCT 86 TO NOV 87 WITH OUT A
DETECTED AIR-AIR MISSILE FIRING. SUDDENLY IN NOVEMBER 87 F-4'S FROM BUSHEHR
ENGAGED IRAQI AIRCRAFT NORTH OF BANDAR KHOMEYNI WITH MULTIPLE AAM'S. IN
EARLY FEB 88 AN IRIAF F-14 APPARENTLY DOWNED AN F-1 SE OF FARSI ISLAND AND
ANOTHER F-14 FIRED AT TWO TARGETS 3 HOURS LATER. SINCE THEN BOTH F-4 AND
F-14 AIRCRAFT HAVE SHOWN AN INCREASED AGGRESSIVENESS AND WILLINGNESS TO
EMPLOY AAMS. MOST RECENTLY IN MID-MARCH AN F-14 DOWNED AN F-1 DURING AN
ATTACK ON KHARG ISLAND IN AND AN F-14 MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE A C-601
LAUCNHED FROM A H-6D. A BANDAR ABBAS F-4 POSSIBLY LAUNCHED AN AAM AGAINST
TWO F-1'S RTB AFTER A RAID ON LAVAN ISLAND IN EARLY APRIL.

As you can see, they mention a number of different engagements. The problem
is, however, they don't mention a number of other engagements.

For example, the only day in "early Feb 88" on which F-14s engaged Mirage
F.1s in two different engagements over the Persian Gulf was 9th of February.
That, however, is not a date I'd describe as "early February".

Besides, why is this report not mentioning air battles that occurred over
the Gulf on 2nd and 5th February? IMHO, this would really be "early Feb
88"...This is simply making me unsure if March 19th can be considered as
"mid-March".

If yes, there is no claim for downing of any IrAF Mirage F.1EQ known in
IRIAF on this date (not only in their F-14-, but also in F-4- or F-5
communities). One was shot down by Tomcats on 18th March (there are photos
of wreckage, name of captured IrAF pilot and corresponding narrative from
IRIAF pilot), but that was over central Iran, not over Khark. During the
strike on 19th March the IrAF Mirage units are not known to have suffered
any losses.

Re. "conspiracy": I wouldn't say there is a consipiracy. I'd only say that I
simply can't understand why should State Dept. keep USN documents back. Can
you say what could be a reason?

--
************************************************** ***********************
Tom Cooper
Freelance aviation journalist

Author:
- Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

- Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6550

- Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

- African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

- Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
************************************************** ***********************

nimbill- Do I know you?

I was on the COMFITAEWWING Staff from 1978-1982. Visited VX-4 twice and every
other squadron at least 4 times BRBR

I was just a lowly enlisted puke. BRBR

Don't know. I was XO of VX-4 from Apr '88 till Nov '89. CO/XO of VF-126 until
Spet of 1992.

No 'lowly enlisted pukes'., IMO, I worked for a salty E-6 in my first
squadron..AMS1 Eubanks...and many others in the next 16 years or so.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

I guess nobody else has heard of these results either. The CO I worked for at
VX-4 was CO Topgun just before that. These two echelon 2 commands would have
certainly heard of these results if they were indeed factual. As XO of VX-4, I
was privy to any and all information that the CO was...

I also completed the Strike Leaders course at Strike U...during my DH tour in
VF-31..F-14s...never heard of any of this during that either...

So as I have 'discussed' with Mr. Cooper. I jes don get it...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Mr Cooper- Pechs,
could it be there is a difference in the way the USN saw some things and the
USAF did it? BRBR

Doubt it. Information is information, particularly when the F-14 was
involved.As per my other post, I was privy to much SI info at VX-4, with a
former CO of Topgun as my CO(Rick Ludwig). The squadron was not into keeping
information to itself, as we were in the operational test worl of the F-14
A/A+/D and F/A-18.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Doubt it. Information is information, particularly when the F-14 was
involved.As per my other post, I was privy to much SI info at VX-4, with a
former CO of Topgun as my CO(Rick Ludwig). The squadron was not into
keeping
information to itself, as we were in the operational test worl of the F-14
A/A+/D and F/A-18.

One more item to throw into the mix. Could've/would've the U.S. have know
about these results until very recently? Could've/would've they interviewed
Iranian and Iraqi participants? I'm thinking about the recent intelligence
debacle over W.O.M.D. and thinking that if mistake was possible (and to
avoid a can of worms, let's assume it was), surely it's possible that they
missed significant information about the Iran-Iraq air war? To make it
clear, I'm still skeptical about Tom's claims, and am a strong believer in
evidence (like most here). I'm just offering another point that I think may
be relevant. Great discussion so far!

Tony

Mr/Mrs Sharpest- I respectfully suggest that instead of rude comments, and
statements based on your (shown to be) faulty memory, how about just
providing us with concrete evidence one way or another? If he plagiarised
large sections of material, it should be easy for you to find the matching
references and post them or cite the specific details. It's ridiculous to
ask an author to defend himself at every turn from every crack pot.
Innocent until proven guilty puts the burden of evidence on you. And for
the record, I trust a review by a Canadian Military Journal a lot more than
I trust some unknown individual on a newsgroup. Regards,

Tony

You remind me of people I have been tasked to assist in writing during
my school years. Your work is so botched it's beyond salvage. If you
want to call it an attack it is up to you. But if you really want a
full-blown critique, loan me a review copy, and I'll send it back with
my notes.

Could you do us all a favour and finally get yourself a copy? I know you
wouldn't ever admit it, but your message is a clear-cut try to get one... If
you would like to have one, why don't you simply ask? I'll gladly send you a
copy.

Otherwise, further above I have shown that your attack from amazon.com was
NOT removed, and that you were lying.

Now you've proved again that you haven't read the book. You're commenting
"about it" nevertheless: strangely, you don't do so by criticising the book,
it's contents or whatever else - but all the time by offending my person.

So, can you provide evidence for what you're talking about or not?

As second: your attack from amazon.com was NOT removed. Neither me nor
anybody else complained, and therefore it was not removed - as can be
seen
by everybody who opens the page he
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...78422?v=glance

So, here I must conclude that you're lying.

I checked two days ago, and they were gone. Maybe they put it back at
the behest of people who read this thread?

Another lie. Two days ago your critique was there, just like it was there
one, three, four and regardless how many days lapsed since you posted it
there.

However, I can perfectly understand that you'll deny this. Must've been
there is a conspiracy between amazon.com and me - against you, of course...

Can you provide evidence that any kind of critique for that book was ever
removed from amazon.com?

(Remember that you can easily contact amazon.com and ask them to show you
such evidence.)

As next, it is well-known to us that there are several readers who do not
hate that book but me - and who repeatedly attack my person by
prentending
of attacking the book. The silly thing about this is that all four of
them
are well-known to me: two because they plagiarized me, and two because
they
attacked the book although they never read it.

I don't give a what who else you've ****ed off, but it's reassuring
its a big group and certainly growing, no doubt. You never replied
about you attacking genuine experts in this field. In this thread
alone, you've shown your typical condescending attitude towards ppl
who've been there, done that.

Well, given that the whole print run of that book was meanwhile sold out, I
wonder how "big" this "group" really is...

This aside from the fact that you seem unable to agree with yourself if it's
you alone who's criticising publications I authored or co-authored, or if
there is some "group"...

That poster, who I do not know personally but have had the pleasure of
reading his posts over the years, was, as I understand it, Executive
Officer of VX-4, "The Evaluators", the US Navy's fighter test
squadron. They tested and developed tactics and technolgy for the
Navy's tactical air force. He was also Commanding Officer of VF-126,
one of the elite adversary/aggressor squadrons, who no doubt were
immersed in knowledge of bad guy capabilities. From his postings, I
understand he was also posted as an Instructor Pilot in exchange with
the USAF, teaching them to fly F-4 Phantoms, not to mention long
service with the Fleet in F-4s and F-14s. Now, answer this: How is it
you know more about fighter tactics than he?

Your main problem appears to be a very bad memory. The man I think you're
talking about posted several times into this thread too.

However, Pechs and me have never discussed tactics with even a single word
in any of our exchanges (all of which can still be found under
google.google.com/groups). You don't have to believe me: ask him.

Well, sigh, this would mean that you're lying again - and there is evidence
for this as well.

That's right: I can't play baseball.
Add to that:
1)You cannot be humbled, ever.

Certainly not by characters like you.

2)You cannot recognize superior authority in knowledge, when faced.

I never faced an authority superior in knowledge about air warfare between
Iran and Iraq (or about specific Arab and African air forces) - on the
internet. That's right.

You only respond in personal taunts.

Can you show me these "personal taunts" in which I responded to you? Where
did I offend you by even a single word? Despite all your bragging I haven't
said even a single bad word about you - except you consider pointings at
your constructions and lies as such?

3)You can't penetrate Military Aviation writing in-depth.

Can you provide evidence that I ever even attempted to do so?

Your work is
superficial, and amaturish.

I guess it makes no sence to ask you to provide evidence for this?

4)You won't admit errors.

Can you point me at any of my errors (except if you consider publishing of
that first book by Schiffer as one)?

Well, from exchange with him I'm sure that he is still convinced that
Iranian F-14s were not armed with AIM-7s. Would you like to join him in
that
opinion?
Let's see. He was a serving general officer in one of the most
professional air forces in that region. Iraq had recieved satelite
targeting data from the US, and other military intel during that
conflict. You would think whatever intel on the F-14 they were unable
to ascertain locally, were provided to them also by Uncle Sam. Now who
do I believe, him or some egotistical amature with a very weak base
of work?

Can you provide evidence that Iranian F-14s were not compatible with AIM-7s?

With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment
about
it?
Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
library.

As said: you haven't read it. Period.

Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of Gillcrist's
book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
Gillcrist's name wrongly).

Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
word.

Let's see. First you said: "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws massive portions from
Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"...almost word for word plagerism".

Then you said, "portion".

Now you're down to, "several hundred words" (in a book of nearly 360.000
words).

Could you agree with yourself about how much was eventually "plagiarised"
from that book?

But OK. That's at least specific enough. On the page 33 of "Iran-Iraq War
in
the Air, 1980-1988", there is one sentence taken from that book. On the
end
of it is sign for footnote 39.... and the footnote 39 (p.54) says:
"TOMCAT!
The Grumman F-14 Story, by R.Adm (USN. Ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist."

Yes, that is true. I admit I missed that piece, but that was several
months ago that I read your book. And I do remember now what I thought
as I read that book: Tom Cooper quoted and gave credit for that
single line.

Tell me one thing (at least): Don't you ever read your own posts? Or are you
unable of understanding what you write?

On amazon.com you stated: "Whole sections are simply lifted from other
works...Tom Cooper unashamedly plagerizes Gillchrist's volume for much of
this chapter. He does not offer citations and whole sections are copied word
for word". In your first post here you stated, "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws
massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!". In your second post you
stated that "portions" of that book were "lifted". Then, in the last message
above you say, "several hundred words", and all the time you "stress" that
we have completely omitted any kind of indication from where the three
sentences in question came.

Now you say that you, "thought...(I) gave credit for that single line".

Are you a man enough to stand and admit that you are lying about this whole
issue?

It certainly read like the authors were presenting the information
regarding the F-14 pre-sale drama as their own.

I have shown you above that this is not truth: do you have any evidence of
the contrary?

Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
other people's work.

I could easily post the whole chapter here. That's not a problem as I still
have the original manuscript in electronic form.

But, it is you who is attacking me of being a plagiarizer - so you have to
deliver evidence for your accusation. Either you are able of doing this, or
you are lying - in which case my lawyer would be outright greateful if you
continue in the same style....

For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.

A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.

Is this all you have of "evidence" that I am a "plagiarizer"?

Eventually, you ough to admit appearing pretty silly regarding this, then
in
your eagerness to attack me you failed to notice that both books were
published by Schiffer Military Publishing, Atglen. Do you seriously
consider
them so stupid to accept a manuscript that is plagiarising one of their
earlier books?

Well, that Iran-Iraq war book was written so poorly, I don't think
they even read it, or if they did, released it anyway, thinking it can
float on the weight of their reputation. Once you post the relevant
chapter I have asked you to, I'm going to renew my contact with
Admiral Gillchrist, and maybe he'll take it up with Schiffer.

Please, do us all a favour: contact R.Adm (USN ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist and
bring your matter also up to Schiffer Military Publishing. I don't know the
contact details of Mr. Gillcrist, but you can reach the editor of the book
via the website of Schiffer Military Publishing.

Be so kind to do that - and then post the results he I'm really curious
about their reactions and looking forward for them. Foremost: I want you to
present your evidence of any kind of my plagiarisations.

Well, perhaps you could contact Mr. Ian Robertson (editor) and ask him. I
never got any answer regarding this.

You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
that list?

Yes, please, do that too. Let me know if you need any e-mail adresses of
responsible people at Osprey.

Putting your writing career in a coffin is not something I
would relish (I don't hack people for the fun of it), but if that's
what you want me to do...

Feel free to do so whenever you have time. Just, do us all a favour and
finally provide some kind of evidence.

I'm actually rather surprised you haven't already informed all the relevant
authorities and never issued a law suit against all these crimes I
committed.... ?

Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
able to rub off.

Again: feel free to "sink" me, or "rub (me) off" as much as you like. All
you need to do is to - instead of posting lies about me here - write several
e-mails to all these contacts of yours and then to my publishers.

I'm affraid, however, that you might need some evidence for your
accusations, so - please - take care to first find any.

It is the in footnote 39 and footnote 43 of that chapter, just for
example. You're only so much involved in attempt to attack me, that you
oversaw this completely.

Should you want to continue in the same style, I'll obviously have to
post
here also something like 30 other footnotes from that book...

What makes me wonder here, how would you then describe such books like
"Red
Wings over Yalu", which consist of footnotes and references to almost
40%?

From what I recall, your footnotes were as shallow as the text, and
added nothing to further understanding of the topic. Vague is the word
I would employ to give name to your footnotes.

Surely, surely. Can you provide evidence for the footnotes in "Iran-Iraq War
in the Air, 1980-1988" being "vague"?

Or is it now so that you "don't remember" (i.e. haven't read) them - like
you "don't remember" those mentioning Mr. Gillcrist's book?

That's not the answer to question I asked. So, here again: WHERE am I
"known
as plagiarizer"?

You're known as a plagerizer to me.

Well, that much about that. Do you remember what I said about the meaning of
your opinion to me?

Before I read that book, you were
known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.

And that should be a reason that none of them ever complained - less issued
a law suit against somebody who is so much plagiarising "them all" as you
explain here?

And there were critiques at Amazon.com sharper
and less vile in tone than mine, yet equally truthfull. The reviews
for your book @ Amazon were near unanimous: it's bunk.

All the "critiques" are still there. Why don't you go there and see them
for
yourself?

I'll take your word for it. Why is it everyone who voices their
disapproval of that God damn book has to be somehow after you?

The answer is simple: you are none of "them", and because you are completely
unable to provide any kind of evidence for your ridiculous accusations.

All you posted here so far are insults and lies which were easy to counter.
Post evidence that ANYTHING I ever authored or co-authored is a
plagiarisation - or be a man and admit that you are lying.

And after
several months up there, everyone's postings were removed!

This is a lie, and you know that. Nothing was removed.

Besides, what is with the following review:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engr...o3/book7_e.asp

Wow, a review from a Canadian Military Journal. Oh golly gee wiz
Wally, I'll read it as soon as I'm finished reading the review on
bobsledding by the prestigious Kuwaiti Forum of Winter Sporting. Try
again, ace.

Have you read that review - so to be able to explain us the worth of opinion
by somebody who is teaching War Studies at Royal Military College?

As you can see, I'm here, with my full name.

Oh, and who are you and what are your qualifications?

Oh little old me? I'm just a thumbsucker who likes jet books. Got any
good ones do ya?

Do you recall what I said how much I care about your opinion?

Re. Steve Davies: Steve is meanwhile acknowledged as THE expert when it
comes to USAF F-15s, with excellent contacts within the USAF F-15C/E
circles, a number of related books, articles and even TV-shows. If he's
what
you describe as "amateur", I'm gladly joining him in that status.

I thought THE expert[s] when it comes to USAF F-15s were at Nellis?
I'm happy you've given your pal a reach-around. It's absolutely
touching and a tear jerker when you folk do that. I'm sure he thinks
you're THE expert on non-aligned air arms too. ONI, AIA and DIA have
nothing on you and your posse at www.acig.org. You heard it here
first! And screw those dozens of reputable authors out there who just
don't know what the hell they're screaming about, not when ACIG.org
and Tom Cooper are around.

Very convincing, that's sure....

BTW, who are all these "reputable authors"?

Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a
campaign
of spreading lies about me.

Ah Yep. You got me. You won't tell on me will ya? Any other
conspiracies you care to share?

Twisting my words again? Did _I_ use a word "conspiracy" here or is it you?
Take a look above and see what I said.

Could you at least once do slightly better but constructing, offending and
lying?

To be sincere and direct - as I always am: I don't care the least about
your
opinion, nor am I trying to change it.

I'm just putting your lies straight.

You just post that stuff I asked you to, regarding the F-14 sale.

You're accusing me, so you have to provide evidence. If you are unable to
find evidence for your statements, you're lying - and my lawyer is going to
take care about the rest.

Don't you get creative now and dare add anything. Better yet, post a
scan of the pages. I'll be ready with my ****. Or you can just save us
all time and fess up. Save your rep while you can, friend. Because
once you post those jpegs, you've just flushed yourself down the hole.
But let's not let it reach that, buddy. Just tell me you messed up a
little and won't do it again, promise-to-God, cross-your-fingers
hope-to-die, and I'll get off your case.

I'm here and waiting for your evidence: can you finally show some or is
****ing against the wind the best you can?


--
************************************************** ***********************
Tom Cooper
Freelance aviation journalist

Author:
- Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

- Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6550

- Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

- African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

- Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
************************************************** ***********************

Pechs,
do I understand your post correctly: not even people at Topgun have ever got
documents of this kind?

In the introduction it stands it was supplied to following authorities:

- COMOPTEVFOR NORFOLK VA
- HAWTS ONE YUMA AZ
- AIRTEVRON FOUR
- AIRTEVRON FIVE
- CJTFME
- USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL
- USCINCCENT INTELCEN MACDILL AFB FL
- CINCPACFLT PEARL HARBOUR HI
- COMSEVENTHFLT
- CTF SEVEN ZERO
- CTG EIGHT ZERO ZERO PT ONE
- USS ENTERPRISE
- COMCARAIRWING ELEVEN
- INFO FTD WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH
- DIRNSA FT GEORGE G MEADE MD
- CIA WASHINGTON DC
- NAVSTRKWARCEN FALLON NV
- NAVFITWEPSCOL SAN DIEGO CA

Security clearance: S E C R E T NOFORN WNINTEL

If you think I'm constructing anything I can easily e-mail you a scan of the
document mentioned above so you can check if it's real or not.

--
************************************************** ***********************
Tom Cooper
Freelance aviation journalist

Author:
- Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

- Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6550

- Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

- African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

- Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
************************************************** ***********************

On 11/11/04 7:38 AM, in article , "Tom
Cooper" wrote:


Now, it's not so that I'm "believing rumours over SPEAR message": I haven't
got any corresponding documents released.

My remark was in regards to the NAVOPINTCEN SUITLAND MD message 102038Z Apr
88 which is NOT mentioning this battle from 18 March 1988, even if it
mentions a number of other, smaller engagements. If you don't mind me
repeating the content of paragraph 5:

THE IRANIAN AIR FORCE WENT FOR OVER A YEAR FROM OCT 86 TO NOV 87 WITH OUT A
DETECTED AIR-AIR MISSILE FIRING. SUDDENLY IN NOVEMBER 87 F-4'S FROM BUSHEHR
ENGAGED IRAQI AIRCRAFT NORTH OF BANDAR KHOMEYNI WITH MULTIPLE AAM'S. IN
EARLY FEB 88 AN IRIAF F-14 APPARENTLY DOWNED AN F-1 SE OF FARSI ISLAND AND
ANOTHER F-14 FIRED AT TWO TARGETS 3 HOURS LATER. SINCE THEN BOTH F-4 AND
F-14 AIRCRAFT HAVE SHOWN AN INCREASED AGGRESSIVENESS AND WILLINGNESS TO
EMPLOY AAMS. MOST RECENTLY IN MID-MARCH AN F-14 DOWNED AN F-1 DURING AN
ATTACK ON KHARG ISLAND IN AND AN F-14 MAY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE A C-601
LAUCNHED FROM A H-6D. A BANDAR ABBAS F-4 POSSIBLY LAUNCHED AN AAM AGAINST
TWO F-1'S RTB AFTER A RAID ON LAVAN ISLAND IN EARLY APRIL.


The key word here is "DETECTED."

As you can see, they mention a number of different engagements. The problem
is, however, they don't mention a number of other engagements.

For example, the only day in "early Feb 88" on which F-14s engaged Mirage
F.1s in two different engagements over the Persian Gulf was 9th of February.
That, however, is not a date I'd describe as "early February".


Perhaps they weren't "DETECTED."

Besides, why is this report not mentioning air battles that occurred over
the Gulf on 2nd and 5th February? IMHO, this would really be "early Feb
88"...This is simply making me unsure if March 19th can be considered as
"mid-March".


You're expecting a comprehensive report with historical accuracy. What
you're reading though is an intelligence report where SPEAR is reporting
only on the verifiable incidents a short time later without the benefit of
your historical sources. Make sense?

The document isn't inaccurate. It's probably just incomplete.

If yes, there is no claim for downing of any IrAF Mirage F.1EQ known in
IRIAF on this date (not only in their F-14-, but also in F-4- or F-5
communities). One was shot down by Tomcats on 18th March (there are photos
of wreckage, name of captured IrAF pilot and corresponding narrative from
IRIAF pilot), but that was over central Iran, not over Khark. During the
strike on 19th March the IrAF Mirage units are not known to have suffered
any losses.

Re. "conspiracy": I wouldn't say there is a consipiracy. I'd only say that I
simply can't understand why should State Dept. keep USN documents back. Can
you say what could be a reason?

I could, but then I'd have to kill you.

--Woody