23_Tauri
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,927
It was so off-the-wall I thought he was being tongue in cheek! Love your new avatar by the way mate.
- Status
I stated:
"Hey, guy, it was EHocking who cited the 1950 document and it was ME who showed it was largely irrelevant. Direct your comments toward him... he brought it up."
I stated:
" However, that document DOES list existing assets (in the form of stations and the type of aircraft held at them) as at MAY 1949! "
Why is the document titled The Naval Aeronautical Organisation (Fiscal year 1949)" published on 10 May 1947?
And can you tell me why the "second revision" of that document (you know, the one YOU claim lists current assets as at June 1949),
titled "Naval Aeronautical Organisation Fiscal Year 1949", published in June 1948?
And can you tell me why the the "1950" document (you know, the one YOU claim is "irrelevant"),
titled "Naval Aeronautical Organisation Fiscal Year 1950", published in May 1949?
Now to answer you unfounded assertion directly:
On page 25 of the "1949" document (YOUR preferred document) the following words appear:
(the document goes on to list 18 existing air stations, then has a part 2 "Additional Activities")
Then on page 26 the following (part 3) appears:
(the document goes on to list exactly as is stated above )
I must be noted that under the "AIRSHIPS" column, ONLY Lakehurst has a number of airships listed (6 of them) - now I want you to read the following words very carefully
NO other air station has ANY airships listed. But given this document was produced in June 1948 - it actually has NO RELEVANCE to how many airships were at any of the bases in June 1949.
For an assessment of THAT capability we must turn to the "1950" document - produced in May 1949 - (well ...it is CLOSE to the June 1949 date we are interested in...)
This time under the SAME section and in the same list (p.25) we find under the "ZP" column (changed from "airships" for space reasons I suppose), ONLY 2 airships at Lakehurst (and note carefully) NONE at ANY other station.
Now, can we FINALLY leave people's (failed) attempts to rewrite USN history? Please.
"Hey, guy, it was EHocking who cited the 1950 document and it was ME who showed it was largely irrelevant. Direct your comments toward him... he brought it up."
So when EHocking claims:
he is a liar?
I stated:
" However, that document DOES list existing assets (in the form of stations and the type of aircraft held at them) as at MAY 1949! "
Before I answer that directly can you answer me this:
Why is the document titled The Naval Aeronautical Organisation (Fiscal year 1949)" published on 10 May 1947?
And can you tell me why the "second revision" of that document (you know, the one YOU claim lists current assets as at June 1949),
titled "Naval Aeronautical Organisation Fiscal Year 1949", published in June 1948?
And can you tell me why the the "1950" document (you know, the one YOU claim is "irrelevant"),
titled "Naval Aeronautical Organisation Fiscal Year 1950", published in May 1949?
Now to answer you unfounded assertion directly:
On page 25 of the "1949" document (YOUR preferred document) the following words appear:
SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
1. Existing Air stations
The existing Naval Air Stations Listed below..."
1. Existing Air stations
The existing Naval Air Stations Listed below..."
(the document goes on to list 18 existing air stations, then has a part 2 "Additional Activities")
Then on page 26 the following (part 3) appears:
SECTION V - THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of Aircraft by types to Reserve Air Stations is indicated below:"
3. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of Aircraft by types to Reserve Air Stations is indicated below:"
(the document goes on to list exactly as is stated above )
I must be noted that under the "AIRSHIPS" column, ONLY Lakehurst has a number of airships listed (6 of them) - now I want you to read the following words very carefully
NO other air station has ANY airships listed. But given this document was produced in June 1948 - it actually has NO RELEVANCE to how many airships were at any of the bases in June 1949.
For an assessment of THAT capability we must turn to the "1950" document - produced in May 1949 - (well ...it is CLOSE to the June 1949 date we are interested in...)
This time under the SAME section and in the same list (p.25) we find under the "ZP" column (changed from "airships" for space reasons I suppose), ONLY 2 airships at Lakehurst (and note carefully) NONE at ANY other station.
Now, can we FINALLY leave people's (failed) attempts to rewrite USN history? Please.
I was clear enough... but let me make it even clearer:
This thread was closed by Library Lady.
I appealed (see the Appeals section of this forum - despite what Ahkenaten tries to imply - my appeal post exists there)
I then (in the interim) began a "UFOs: The research, the evidence MkII" post.
Library Lady (I presume, since she was the one who answered my appeal post) then re-opened the original thread and merged my MkII version into it.
...and here we are.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Since when is Goodyear part of the United States military?
Well ok, but could you try to come up with something new instead of recycling from post #1.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Perhaps you should have simply said that the first time I asked.
Now perhaps we can get back to this question:
OK, here's a question for both of you.
What are these?
Hints:
1. They are flying.
2. They are objects.
I'd answer very carefully if I were you, Rramjet, considering that I am one of the people whom you claim deny the existence of these things.
You've already had one go, but your response was so wrong as to be beyond comical, as if that were a novelty. Would you care to have another try or should I proceed with what we've got?
Maybe they're blimps.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Just a bit of trollery, I suspect.
The avatar is from the master, Paulhoff, who added some startled little blinks to my already-surprised kitten. I'm afraid it's only a temporary fixture, but you're more than welcome to it when I put my cartouche back up.
Of course it is not - but it produced many (if not all) of the USN airships and it did lease from the USN some of the decommissioned USN airstations for their own commercial use in the latter part of the 1940s (Moffett Field and Tillamook for example)
Thus while there were No USN airships on the West Coast in 1949 - there WERE Goodyear advertising blimps - hence the UFO debunkers claim for Rogue River ...but to mistake a huge (K-type), noisy Goodyear advertising blimp -with large colourful logos emblazoned on both sides - positively designed to be noticed - for a small, silent circular "craft" - is totally implausible.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Perhaps they were oil well fires? We know those have been mistaken before, don't we?
You never "asked". You simply accused me of being a "liar" straight of the bat - based of course on an unfounded belief without ever exploring any of the evidence - and this action by you simply re-confirms what I have been contending all along - that this is typical of UFO debunker behaviour.
Why should I indulge you in your "guessing games" when you have (and are) being so rude to me? (I notice you still haven't apologised for the "liar" accusation by the way...)
Sorry to say this, but considering your previous behaviour liar is a rather natural assumption.
It would be quite interesting to see a UFO=alien believer in action with new material. Something we have been lacking since the beginning of the tread.
Could you kind of outline the thought processes that leads from an unknown to a confirmed alien vessel.
If you had read the OP (Mk II) post there WAS much new and different information from the original OP. I guess you comment here means you simply did not read that post?
In that post also was the following UFO sighting:
Giant UFO over the Yukon Gold Fields/Indian River (1996)
(http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread487438/pg1)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/indian-river-ufo/irufo-page1.html)
(http://www.ufobc.ca/yukon/22index.htm) (11 Dec 1996)
Now this is an interesting sighting because it is new to me as well as everyone else I suspect. That is, I have not "studied" the case at all except for a cursory read through.
Given this statement from you:
It would seems to me to be a great case for us all to explore.
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,347
Haha. I try hard to avoid the ignominy of admitting a post is tl;dr but seriously Rroger, can you imagine what you posted there from the point of view of anyone else confronted by it?
How many unsolicited hyperlinks do you think it's reasonable to expect anyone to deal with while reading a single post? How many do you think you posted? Have a guess and then go and look.
It wasn't a wall o' text, it was the entire library, and for once, no, I didn't read it. If you had a point to make, maybe you should just have made it and stopped.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I don't mind the occasional link but argumentum ad linkum wears pretty thin. Maybe if Rramjet would post a link to his best case and then post a hypothesis about it? All the real scientists are doing it these days.
Oil well fires.
Oil well fires.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
"But" "you" "are" "a" "liar".
As for "being" "typical UFO debunker behaviour", I'll "have" to "take" your "word" for it, since I'm "unaware" of "any" "such" a "thing" "existing" "."
I'm being rude to you because turnabout is fair play. I imagine you'd like to think yourself to be the epitome of politeness, but as usual, you're wrong.
As for playing my guessing games, I care little whether you do or not.
If you play, you'll lose because of the ignorance of your arrogance, if you don't play then you lose by default. Win/win for me, eh? Cool.
Don't hold your breath waithing for an apology, mate. I only offer those to people whom I'm sorry for having offended. Guess what.
Also, blimps.
- Status