Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:38 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine Luftwaffe Resource Center WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 5:18 pm 
Offline
Squadron Leader

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:56 pm
Posts: 192
"We know the plane arrived close to Howland based on...."

gary217 wrote:
And we know that the plane arrived close to Howland based on the strength of the radio signals and also on the sunline LOP. And we know the plane had not started a return to Bougainville prior to 2013 Z and even with 32 hours of fuel on board it would have been too late to start such a diversion after 2013 Z. And we know that Noonan did this same computation for the original planned flight from Hawaii to Howland so it is a rational assumption that he would have done the same if contemplating a diversion to Rabaul and would have computed that it was not feasible.


Based on the Radio Signals ?

Pardon me.... but HF can travel for hundreds of miles (Even thousands) and although it does seems there were increasing strengths in reception as the flight wore on "S5" does not mean that they were "close to Howland". Even the TIGHAR Radio Gurus repeatedly warn Gillespie about saying the same thing about "S5" they too are ignored. Agreed strength five could have come on at "line of sight" from 10,000 or 12,000 feet (Lovell) as a line of sight between aerials but S5 does not mean AE, FN and the Electra were on top of Howland. How then is it known that AE, FN and the Electra were close to Howland ?

On the Sunline ?

How is it known that AE, FN and the Electra were on the Sunline ? Is that because Gillespie thinks that is the case ? Did Earhart say "Sunline" ? Or did she say "Line" ? Could it have been a simple "Line of Position" at Right Angles to the steer they were on of 067 degrees laying off for wind ? How is it known they were on a Sunline ?

Wind of 23 Knots ?

Did the wind stay constant at 23 Knots or did it vary ?

Bougainville ?

Where does Bougainville come into this ?

Diversion to Rabaul ?

A diversion Rabaul was not prior planned so how does that figure in this ? A Diversion was planned to The Gilberts as per "The Contingency Plan".

Take it from there.......

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 6:42 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:08 pm
Posts: 61
David Billings wrote:
"We know the plane arrived close to Howland based on...."

gary217 wrote:
And we know that the plane arrived close to Howland based on the strength of the radio signals and also on the sunline LOP. And we know the plane had not started a return to Bougainville prior to 2013 Z and even with 32 hours of fuel on board it would have been too late to start such a diversion after 2013 Z. And we know that Noonan did this same computation for the original planned flight from Hawaii to Howland so it is a rational assumption that he would have done the same if contemplating a diversion to Rabaul and would have computed that it was not feasible.


Based on the Radio Signals ?

Pardon me.... but HF can travel for hundreds of miles (Even thousands) and although it does seems there were increasing strengths in reception as the flight wore on "S5" does not mean that they were "close to Howland". Even the TIGHAR Radio Gurus repeatedly warn Gillespie about saying the same thing about "S5" they too are ignored. Agreed strength five could have come on at "line of sight" from 10,000 or 12,000 feet (Lovell) as a line of sight between aerials but S5 does not mean AE, FN and the Electra were on top of Howland. How then is it known that AE, FN and the Electra were close to Howland ?

On the Sunline ?

How is it known that AE, FN and the Electra were on the Sunline ? Is that because Gillespie thinks that is the case ? Did Earhart say "Sunline" ? Or did she say "Line" ? Could it have been a simple "Line of Position" at Right Angles to the steer they were on of 067 degrees laying off for wind ? How is it known they were on a Sunline ?

It's an amazing coincidence that the 157-337 line just happened to be the exact azimuth of an LOP derived from an observation of the sun during the period from sunrise and for an hour afterwards. And she said they were on a line, not that she was flying a heading of 157-337. You propose that this was a heading to counter a cross wind but that can't be the case because when there is a cross wind the headings to maintain a line in opposite directions are not reciprocal of each other, With a wind out of the east the wind correction angle would require a left correction when heading to the southeast and a right correction when heading to the northwest so the two heading would never be exactly 180 degrees different. For example, if she wanted to maintain the 157-337 line with a east wind requiring a 10 degree correction she would have flown 147 when heading southeast and 347 when heading northwest not the stated 157-337. See:
https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/navigation-to-howland-island
Quote:

Wind of 23 Knots ?

Did the wind stay constant at 23 Knots or did it vary ?


So it varied. I showed the computation using several different wind speeds and she still hadn't enough gas to get to new Britain. I provided the formulas and references so you can do the computations with any winds you choose, let me know what winds you come up with that will get them to New Britain.
Quote:

Bougainville ?

Where does Bougainville come into this ?

Typing late at night, I obviously was talking about New Britain where Rabaul is located and where you believe the plane ended up. I made this correction to my prior post.
Quote:


Diversion to Rabaul ?

A diversion Rabaul was not prior planned so how does that figure in this ? A Diversion was planned to The Gilberts as per "The Contingency Plan".


it comes from your prior post on May 14, 2015 stating your hypothesis:

"The Electra is at The Gilberts at 2200 GMT, and 11 Hours totals a flight of 33 Hours. and a range needed of around 4200 SM to the crash site. Crash Site ? Not yet ! lt was possible that she intended to attempt RABAUL. "

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=55615&start=15#p553750

Your hypothesis is that they made a conscious decision to forgo an emergency landing in the Gilberts and to instead continue on to the nearest airport at Rabaul on New Britain to avoid damage to the plane and risk of injury to the occupants. That is your theory, isn't it? Or do you think that they believed that the Gilberts were still ahead?
Quote:

Take it from there.......

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."


Last edited by gary217 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 10:09 pm 
Offline
Squadron Leader

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:56 pm
Posts: 192
Response to Gary217

gary217 wrote:
It's an amazing coincidence that the 157-337 line just happened to be the exact azimuth of an LOP derived from an observation of the sun during the period from sunrise and for an hour afterwards. And she said they were on a line, not that she was flying a heading of 157-337.


Yes, we all know about the "amazing coincidence" of the azimuth and the time of day and the sunline being at 157/337 but they were late on arriving and "Must be on you but cannot see you" let's the cat out of the bag as far as "deep uncertainty" goes, that they knew where they were, for obviously they did not. Will you or any other Navigator lay a big one on the table at evens and say, "I know they were in that sunline" ? I doubt that you or any other NAV would do that.

It is my understanding that a "Line of Position" at right angles to a 067 track has to be corrected for drift to maintain the new track 157-337 if there is a head or tail wind, so what you are saying is already known.... similarly a "Sunline" heading also would need to be corrected for drift to maintain the sunline. Nothing new there. She didn't say "Sunline" so we do not know for sure that she was on a sunline which for her purpose HAD to cut through Howland.... we do not know if it did cut through Howland either, do you ?.

gary217 wrote:
So it varied.


Indeed the wind would vary. From what I read the July winds in Pacific at the equator are from the East. They come down the West coast of North America and up from the West coast of South America and then join and blow from the East straight across the Pacific.
As I have said, I have worked it to be 35 mph overhead the USCG ONTARIO which was experiencing 20 Knots on the surface, 35 mph is 30 Knots and it is 20 mph over the high end forecast that she received.

I have previously mentioned high Easterly wind values in mid-year told to me by pilots who have flown over the area at the 8000' to 14000' levels.

gary217 wrote:
it comes from your prior post on May 14, 2015 stating your hypothesis: "The Electra is at The Gilberts at 2200 GMT, and 11 Hours totals a flight of 33 Hours. and a range needed of around 4200 SM to the crash site. Crash Site ? Not yet ! lt was possible that she intended to attempt RABAUL. "


Possibly Earhart a first decided to try to get back "closer" to civilisation, later when it dawned that Rabaul may be possible.....

I know that you Gary 217 are a Navigator, that is well known and that you believe Fed Noonan was unlikely to make a mistake but the fact is the Electra did not land at Howland Island due to difficulties with the navigation or by an error in the navigation.

You are a proponent of "crashed and sank" and have your own agenda where you are involved with a search project based in Northern Ireland. I believe (from the evidence I have) that the Electra is on land in East New Britain. I suggest we leave it at that.

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2015 2:19 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:08 pm
Posts: 61
David Billings wrote:
Response to Gary217

gary217 wrote:
It's an amazing coincidence that the 157-337 line just happened to be the exact azimuth of an LOP derived from an observation of the sun during the period from sunrise and for an hour afterwards. And she said they were on a line, not that she was flying a heading of 157-337.


Yes, we all know about the "amazing coincidence" of the azimuth and the time of day and the sunline being at 157/337 but they were late on arriving and "Must be on you but cannot see you" let's the cat out of the bag as far as "deep uncertainty" goes, that they knew where they were, for obviously they did not. Will you or any other Navigator lay a big one on the table at evens and say, "I know they were in that sunline" ? I doubt that you or any other NAV would do that.


There were only two ways to determine that line of position, by use of the radio direction finder (and we know that Earhart "could not get a minimum") so that wasn't it or by an observation of the sun within an hour of sunrise. The 157-337 line matches EXACTLY to the accuracy of ZERO DEGREEs the line that would be derived by the sun observation. So they were on the sunline LOP within the level of accuracy possible with in-flight celestial navigation, plus or minus 6 NM and then deteriorating at a rate of 13 NM each hour, one tenth of the distance covered each hour, the standard accuracy for dead reckoning for each hour of flight after the time that the observation was taken. You can make reasonable assumptions of when the observation was taken and the time that had elapsed since that observation while they searched for Howland. About the earliest that Noonan could have taken an observation on the sun was 1822 Z and the last transmission was 2013 Z, one hour and 51 minutes later so, if the observation was taken at that earliest possible moment, then they should have been within 30 NM on either side of the LOP. If the observation was taken later then the uncertainty would have been less. The uncertainty of the position along the LOP, to the north or south, would have been greater since much greater time had elapsed since Noonan could have observed a star which would allow him to determine how far north or south they were. From that point the dead reckoning error of one-tenth of the distance flown would have grown enough so that they ended up far enough to the north to be under the reported band of clouds, about 40 NM north of Howland. See:
https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/discussions/the-myth-of-the-sunrise-lop
Quote:

It is my understanding that a "Line of Position" at right angles to a 067 track has to be corrected for drift to maintain the new track 157-337 if there is a head or tail wind, so what you are saying is already known.... similarly a "Sunline" heading also would need to be corrected for drift to maintain the sunline. Nothing new there. She didn't say "Sunline" so we do not know for sure that she was on a sunline which for her purpose HAD to cut through Howland.... we do not know if it did cut through Howland either, do you ?.

But she didn't say that it was her heading, she said she was on the line. It makes sense that she was flying a heading to compensate for any crosswind but she didn't tell Itasca what her heading was.
Quote:

Indeed the wind would vary. From what I read the July winds in Pacific at the equator are from the East. They come down the West coast of North America and up from the West coast of South America and then join and blow from the East straight across the Pacific.
As I have said, I have worked it to be 35 mph overhead the USCG ONTARIO which was experiencing 20 Knots on the surface, 35 mph is 30 Knots and it is 20 mph over the high end forecast that she received.

I have previously mentioned high Easterly wind values in mid-year told to me by pilots who have flown over the area at the 8000' to 14000' levels.

O.K., using YOUR value for the wind speed of 30 knots:
34 hours of fuel would produce a PNR of 2225 NM from Lae and 3 NM past Howland at 2225 Z.
33 hour endurance = PNR 2163 NM, 59 NM short at 2138 Z.
32 hour endurance = PNR 2101 NM, 121 NM short at 2101 Z.
31 hour endurance = PNR 2040 NM, 182 NM short at 2024 Z.
30 hour endurance = PNR 1978 NM, 243 NM short at 1947 Z.
Quote:

Possibly Earhart a first decided to try to get back "closer" to civilisation, later when it dawned that Rabaul may be possible.....

David Billings
"Must be Noonan's, then..."

But the closest "civilization" was on Tarawa in the Gilberts, the seat of British government. They only had to follow the string of the Gilbert islands to Tarawa, less than two hundred NM no matter where they cut the Gilberts chain. See:
https://sites.google.com/site/fredienoonan/resources/trial/gnc-7-1.JPG?attredirects=0

gl


Last edited by gary217 on Tue May 19, 2015 5:27 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2015 2:29 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:08 pm
Posts: 61
I understand why David Billings believes that the plane ended up on New Britain, that note from the army patrol is very compelling evidence. I would like him to convince me but he has yet to show a plausible way for the plane to have enough fuel to fly that far. In 2013 we discussed this on a different forum, skeptoid, and I posted the following. I asked Billings to respond to it on line or by email (and I gave him my address) but he never responded to this. Maybe he will respond here.
gl
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Gary LaPook says:
June 9, 2013 at 3:13 am
David, there are a number of problems with you analysis. i will get into them in more detail later but a few initial points.

Earhart’s original plan was to fly non-stop from Hawaii to Tokyo, a distance of 3,860 SM so the plane was designed to cover that distance and originally had tanks holding 1200 gallons. The report on page 6 contained this warning:

“(3). The Cambridge Gas Analyzers should be carefully calibrated
in flight to see IF the fuel consumption data used in this
analysis CAN BE obtained. This should be done before at tempt–
ing any long range flight .”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tavt14xwlvws84f/Page%206%20from%20Report%20487%20original.pdf?dl=0

Apparently it could NOT be shown that the fuel consumption could be gotten down to 0.42 BSFC which was required for the range estimates as shown on page 13 of the report. Earhart then realized there was not a sufficient reserve to make the flight as planned so explored the possibility of being refueled in mid-air over Midway island but the Navy was not too hot on this idea. When Earhart’s buddy Gene Vidal come up with building a runway on Howland the plan was changed so this extreme range was no longer required so one large tank was removed and replaced with a smaller one making the total capacity 1151 gallons. As to the accuracy of the report, the takeoff data was confirmed by the recorded takeoffs so the report is most likely as accurate as it could be especially since it did not guarantee the estimated range values IF the estimated fuel BSFC values could not be achieved and proven in flight.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rz142ig9ne300au/Page%2013%20from%20Report%20487%20original.pdf?dl=0

You believe that somehow she could achieve these unrealistically low fuel consumption rates but the lowest BSFC (BRAKE specific fuel consumption) ever claimed by Pratt & Whitney for this engine (the people who built the engine and who had every reason to claim the lowest possible fuel usage rate so that they could sell more engines) was 0.46 pounds per hour per horsepower not the 0.42 that Kelly Johnson hoped to achieve in report 487. And that is at the optimum power setting, the fuel consumption rate gets WORSE at lower power settings. Look at page 34 of the report, at 250 brake hp the BSFC actually gets slightly worse, 0.47 lb/hp/hr.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9j9iyeaji7uayk3/Pages%2032-34%20from%20Report%20487%20original-annotated.pdf?dl=0

You have made some other mistakes in you reliance on report 487. You claim that Earhart stated that she got the fuel flow down to 20 gallons per hour total (ten gallons per hour per engine) and you claim that the power required graph on page 28 shows that at the 120 mph that Earhart claimed that the power required was 250 hp total requiring a total fuel flow of just about 20 gallons per hour and thus confirming Earhart’s statement. If your interpretation of this graph were correct, then it would provide confirmation of your interpretation of Earhart’s statement. Unfortunately, there are three problems with your reading of this graph.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8uzhchmiyz4l3eg/Page%2028%20from%20Report%20487%20original.pdf?dl=0


First, Earhart stated that her “indicated” airspeed (IAS) was 120 mph at 10,000 feet. According to my E-6B, 120 mph “indicated” airspeed at 10,000 feet at standard conditions makes the “true” airspeed (TAS) 140 mph. Looking at the graph on page 28 (I have the original graph, there is a problem with the copy provided by TIGHAR as the lines on the graph paper do not line up correctly, I could send you a copy if you like) the power required for 140 mph true airspeed at 10,000 feet is 296 horsepower. Using the P&W BSFC of 0.46 means that the fuel flow was,at a minimum, 22.8 gallons per hour. Not a big discrepancy so far.
[In case there are any non-pilots reading this, the airspeed indicator reads less than the aircraft's true airspeed due to the thinner air at altitude. An "E-6B" is a standard circular slide rule that has scales used to correct the "indicated airspeed" for the thinner air so that the aircraft's "true airspeed" can be determined. The graph on page 28 and 27 show the thrust horsepower required for various true airspeeds.]

The second problem is that the power required numbers on page 28 are NOT brake horsepower but are “thrust” horsepower. Since the propeller efficiency is only 75%, the brake horsepower required is 33% greater making the brake horsepower required for 140 mph TAS 393.7 BRAKE hp. Again using the P&W BSFC of 0.46 lb/hp/hr means that the fuel flow was, at a minimum, 181 pounds per hour, 30.2 gallons per hour.

The third problem with using the information from the graph on page 28 is that that graph is for a gross weight of 9,300 pounds and we know the plane weighed at least a thousand pounds more at that stage in the flight. If you look at the graph on page 27 for a gross weight of 12,900 pounds you will see that the thrust horsepower required is 412 making the brake horsepower 548, the fuel flow 252 lb/hr, 42 gallons per hour so we know that the actual flow noted by Earhart had to be between these numbers, between 30.2 and 42 gallons per hour. Another way to look at this is to just apply normal aerodynamics which show that the power required varies with the weight ratio raised to the 1.5 power. The plane, at the time that Earhart reported “less that 20 gallons per hour” weighed about 10,500 based on its fuel and oil load at the time of takeoff from Oakland and based on it carrying four people, NOT just two, plus their baggage (Mantz was planning on spending time with his girl friend in Hawaii) and all the equipment and spares listed in the Luke Field Inventory. 10,500 / 9,300 equals 1.13, raised to the 1.5 power makes 1.20 so the brake horsepower would have been 1.20 X 393.7 = 472 BRAKE horsepower and the fuel flow would have been 36.3 gallons per hour, a little less than 20 gallons per hour PER ENGINE. It appears that Earhart was actually reporting the fuel flow PER ENGINE, not the total fuel flow.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hiy93jipgkp918s/Page%2027%20from%20Report%20487%20original-2.pdf?dl=0

You have also misunderstood the information shown on page 33 of the report. You claim that this table confirms the 250 hp required for 120 mph airspeed so supports the fuel flow reported by Earhart. Didn’t you notice that this table also shows the same 250 hp for an airspeed of 140 and 160 and 180 mph? How does this make sense? If 250 hp could make the plane go 180 mph then why wouldn’t Earhart use that higher speed since it could be obtained with the same power setting and fuel flow, thus improving greatly the range of the plane?
The answer is that the numbers in this table are used to plot the “power available” not the “power required” curves on the graph on page 28. You interpreted the 250 hp as the power “required” which is completely wrong. You can check this for yourself, look at the tables on pages 31 through 33, double the shown horsepowers available, and then plot them on the page 28 graph and you will see that you have simply drawn int the “horsepower available” curves."


Last edited by gary217 on Tue May 19, 2015 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2015 4:37 pm 
Offline
Squadron Leader

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:56 pm
Posts: 192
Gary La Pook

Your determination to run down the East New Britain Project is exemplary.

If you spent as much time on your own project as you do running down other peoples projects you might at last realise the time to raise the $10 Million it will take to search for your crashed and sank theory "somewhere" around the Howland Island area.

In the main I have spent my own money and as I have said hundreds of times, "I don't particularly care 'how' the Electra ended its' days on a hillside in East New Britain". The most important point is that there exists some documentary evidence with the ENB Project as to a location and there has been a sighting by responsible people with a description that fits which is more than anyone else has. This wreck seen has to be found to prove one way or the other whether it is the Electra. Isn't that what all Americans want ? Or is it that it has to be an American that finds it ? Is that it ?

You seem to want to run this ENB Project down and it surprises me when I thought that Americans detested negativity when there are salient points backing up a subject. You seem to breed negativity.

Please take the time to have an inwards look at yourself. Gather your acumen and your energy and devote your time to being positive especially about your own crashed and sank project, then you might get somewhere. When you do, I hope you enjoy your swim.

David Billings


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2015 5:19 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:08 pm
Posts: 61
David Billings wrote:
Gary La Pook

Your determination to run down the East New Britain Project is exemplary.

If you spent as much time on your own project as you do running down other peoples projects you might at last realise the time to raise the $10 Million it will take to search for your crashed and sank theory "somewhere" around the Howland Island area.

In the main I have spent my own money and as I have said hundreds of times, "I don't particularly care 'how' the Electra ended its' days on a hillside in East New Britain". The most important point is that there exists some documentary evidence with the ENB Project as to a location and there has been a sighting by responsible people with a description that fits which is more than anyone else has. This wreck seen has to be found to prove one way or the other whether it is the Electra. Isn't that what all Americans want ? Or is it that it has to be an American that finds it ? Is that it ?

You seem to want to run this ENB Project down and it surprises me when I thought that Americans detested negativity when there are salient points backing up a subject. You seem to breed negativity.

Please take the time to have an inwards look at yourself. Gather your acumen and your energy and devote your time to being positive especially about your own crashed and sank project, then you might get somewhere. When you do, I hope you enjoy your swim.

David Billings

As I said in my prior post, I understand your dedication to your theory because of the compelling WW2 note. However, if you want to get others to share your passion for it then you must have a reasonable explanation for how the airplane could have made it to New Britain and, so far, you have not produced one. I am willing to be convinced, and I truly wish you luck in finding the plane. I want somebody to find that plane while I am still alive. (heck, I'd even be happy if TIGHAR found it! (Not REAL happy, but happpy nonetheless.))

gl


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 19, 2015 6:22 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:08 pm
Posts: 61
gary217 wrote:
(heck, I'd even be happy if TIGHAR found it! (Not REAL happy, but happpy nonetheless.))

gl


Now this is funny! Apparently the forum program has a "Miss Manners" hiding within it. I had typed in the word for where the Devil lives starting with an H and ending with an l but the posting comes back with "heck" substituted. I then experimented with the word that sounds like what water runs over and it comes back with "darn." I wonder what else it will change.


Here are the seven words that you can't say on TV made famous by George Carlin and ruled "not obscene" by the U.S. Supreme Court, Let's see how they come out:

--- do you kiss your mother with that mouth? --- ---- do you kiss your mother with that mouth? --- ----.


Wow, now this is really funny it changed those really bad words to "do you kiss your mother with that mouth." [Keeping in good taste, I removed the words that were not changed.]

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlin
gl


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 1:01 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:08 pm
Posts: 61
And Earhart reported on the radio (which was logged by the Itasca's radio operator) at 0740 local time, 1910 Z, that she had only a half hour of gas left.
" EARHART ON NW SEZ RUNNING OUT OF GAS ONLY 1/2 HR LEFT"

It would take at least 12 hours to fly from the vicinity of Howland to New Britain even with the 30 knot tailwind proposed by Mr. Billings.

See radio log :

Image

gl

https://www.dropbox.com/s/b11fvexjgsj6yq0/half%20hour%20gas%20pages%20from%20ItascaRadioLog1-2_Page_2.jpg?dl=0


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 5:56 pm 
Offline
Group Captain

Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:31 pm
Posts: 662
Location: Caribou, Maine
Geeez, this thread is going to get locked down too...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2015 8:28 pm 
Offline
Lance Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:44 pm
Posts: 27
Human memory and eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Even with recent events, people see and remember things incorrectly, you see it all the time in court testimony.

You need more than that to go on, and establishing a plausible (or even implausible) flight plan is a key test of any theory. And I think that is where this theory fails quite obviously.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:53 am 
Offline
Site Founder
Site Founder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 3951
Location: Haverhill, MA & Johnston, RI
Banhammer at IP

I am starting to receive legal pressure about these threads. Please follow the no personal attacks rules. I've got the Banhammer on standby and the Banhammer II in stealth mode. I will give no warnings or explanations on editing these threads, and if the trend continues I will eliminate them. These threads have caused enough grief already and have severely taxed my willingness to condone non-warbird subjects.

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry - MilitarySciFi.com

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.
And if your doing your holiday shopping on Amazon, consider using the Amazon links on the site to start your shopping, it doesn't cost you anything and helps the site out.
Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.
SUPPORT WIX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 11:07 pm 
Offline
Lance Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 1:03 pm
Posts: 35
Pardon my confusion, but is this warning misplaced? This thread seems fairly tame, no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2015 1:33 pm 
Offline
Site Founder
Site Founder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 3951
Location: Haverhill, MA & Johnston, RI
eljefe wrote:
Pardon my confusion, but is this warning misplaced? This thread seems fairly tame, no?



Unfortunately the subject matter of the two threads are tied together and is prone to inflamed discussions, which is why the warning is necessary.

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry - MilitarySciFi.com

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.
And if your doing your holiday shopping on Amazon, consider using the Amazon links on the site to start your shopping, it doesn't cost you anything and helps the site out.
Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.
SUPPORT WIX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:01 am 
Offline
Squadron Leader

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:56 pm
Posts: 192
[u]Well, I thought I had been "Civil, Nice and Right"[/u]

...and in order to get this thread off'uv the "Red Zone". I make this post......

If people wanna post here after this, the Red Flag is gone.....unless'n ya make some anti-personnel mine joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group