UFO Disclosure
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:15 AM)Free Wrote:  This is an excellent and intellectually honest post. That is all I seek from people here, a little honesty.

I take exception to this Free. I for one have been honest as I can. As have the others. We are saying we do not know. Which is true.

Anything may be possible, but that does not justify saying something happened without evidence.

The evidence you have supplied does not satisfy me. I highly doubt it would satisfy a professional judge involved in court cases everyday.

I think a good lawyer would tear your arguments to absolute threads.

My saying this does NOT make me dishonest. I have nothing against you. You seem a decent bloke. But I think you sometimes over reach.

I require better evidence than what you have supplied. I think if you had it you would have shown us.

I am saying I do not know. I don't. How is this dishonest???

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
11-09-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 02:04 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 01:16 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Way back in 1968 when making the film, The Battle of Britain, many of the film crew ridiculed the stunt pilots who were mock dogfighting. The reason was that many of the crew had been watching dogfights above England through WWII. They said the pilots were not flying aggressively enough. Turns during real life dogfights were right on the edge. People turning literally for their lives.

The pilots were then instructed to do so. From then on the dogfights became more realistic. And these were 1930's era aircraft.

Thumpa is absolutely correct. 45 degrees is nothing. Especially today.

Don't underestimate humanity. Especially humanity building weapons of war.

To be fair, an old 40s-era Merlin-engined fighter could outturn almost anything, because they had power-on-demand, once fuel injection was added into the design. But even clunky old jet fighters with high wing-loading and weak turbines -- like the F-4 Phantom or MiG-21 were very nimble, and could ass it up straight for a time. An F-16 or Tornado? Fugeddaboutit. Those were planes even in that era, with thrust-to-weight ratios that could push the metal straight up into the air, wings not necessary. I've seen them do it, accelerating in a vertical climb. 45° turns are commonplace and unimpressive to anyone who has worked on an active flightline -- even a commercial flightline.
I thought the F4 Phantom turned like a truck leastways that's how a pilot in Vietnam described it in this book I read once.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
11-09-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:15 AM)Free Wrote:  This is an excellent and intellectually honest post. That is all I seek from people here, a little honesty.

I take exception to this Free.

I take exception to your exception! Evil_monster

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
11-09-2015, 08:45 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I take exception to this Free.

I take exception to your exception! Evil_monster

So do I? Whaddaya have to say about all this Jennybee?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
I'm learning so much on this thread (seriously I actually am ) thankyou guys
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
11-09-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I take exception to this Free.

I take exception to your exception! Evil_monster

I catch your exception and display an error message

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
11-09-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
At work.

(11-09-2015 08:34 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I thought the F4 Phantom turned like a truck leastways that's how a pilot in Vietnam described it in this book I read once.

I would think the Pilot in question is mentioning something 'In relative'.

An F-4, two seater, laden down with a load of iron ordinance. The gun pod (Because, all future air craft will 'just' need to shoot missiles. Tongue ) plus maybe a drop tank of fuel......... Is not going to 'Haul @ss' as well as, say, an F-86 which is 'clean' and just sporting her internal gun.

A clean F-4 should still be a twin jet powered "Bat out'a hell" when the Pilot lights the afterburners. Same even for something like the 'Ardvark', and they are a bigger load of bomber type aircraft.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
11-09-2015, 09:06 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
The F4's tactics were usually hit and run and vertical attack runs against the more numerous Mi 17's. When in trouble the pilot would his the after burners, speed out of range of the Mig 17 and return to do the same. Most F4's were lost to AAA than other aircraft in dogfights. Although it did happen.

The F4 was a multi role combat aircraft that made it differ from, for example the Crusader and the Mig 21. Both of which were interceptors. The Vietnamese were loath to use the 21's because they had so few. I think less than 20 for the entire war. Although I could be wrong. It's getting late and I can't be bothered going through my books now.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
11-09-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 08:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:15 AM)Free Wrote:  This is an excellent and intellectually honest post. That is all I seek from people here, a little honesty.

I take exception to this Free. I for one have been honest as I can. As have the others. We are saying we do not know. Which is true.

Anything may be possible, but that does not justify saying something happened without evidence.

The evidence you have supplied does not satisfy me. I highly doubt it would satisfy a professional judge involved in court cases everyday.

I think a good lawyer would tear your arguments to absolute threads.

My saying this does NOT make me dishonest. I have nothing against you. You seem a decent bloke. But I think you sometimes over reach.

I require better evidence than what you have supplied. I think if you had it you would have shown us.

I am saying I do not know. I don't. How is this dishonest???

I have not said that you are dishonest.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: UFO Disclosure
(11-09-2015 09:10 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-09-2015 08:32 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I take exception to this Free. I for one have been honest as I can. As have the others. We are saying we do not know. Which is true.

Anything may be possible, but that does not justify saying something happened without evidence.

The evidence you have supplied does not satisfy me. I highly doubt it would satisfy a professional judge involved in court cases everyday.

I think a good lawyer would tear your arguments to absolute threads.

My saying this does NOT make me dishonest. I have nothing against you. You seem a decent bloke. But I think you sometimes over reach.

I require better evidence than what you have supplied. I think if you had it you would have shown us.

I am saying I do not know. I don't. How is this dishonest???

I have not said that you are dishonest.

That is all well and good, but what are your thoughts on the F4?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: