Originally posted by Krusty
1) you were using that as simply another photo to show what appears to be extremely low-level flight. I was pointing out "it's not so low as you might think".
Hey dilrod... ya might want to remember that the members of the raid were mostly occupied with combat roles. Photographers were volunteers. Very brave volunteers. As it was, most pilots and crew members came back with the same story.... low as could be (including grass stained) to avoid the volume of flak thrown at them.
Originally posted by Krusty
2) you were being an arse and using a coarse level of sarcasm and you know it. You basically accused me of saying everybody in the world is a liar. Scroll up and read your own post, in the context it was in (a response to my post). It's quite clear.
You of all people are the liar here. You have been proven wrong so many times I lose count. Whats up with this continued play of innocence? he world your 12 yr old arse lives in must be wonderfuly bliss. Especially without reality and facts getting in the way... oh wait... I see a 2 yr old 80 foot evergreen!
Originally posted by Krusty
3) You have replied to my posts, but not "answered" them. For a while you engaged in debate, briefly. Then you brought out pilot quotes. I replied on a couple of those just to make a point, then you .. well see my "2" comment right above this.
Most posters here have provided fact (unlike your "expert observations") which are undisputed (other than in your misaligned twit of a brain) and to top it off, you have rebuked eyewitnesses as being wrong according to your skewed version of history...
Originally posted by Krusty
4) unless you know the back story on that KC135 clip, don't use it as proof. He's going very fast and dips very low, but briefly, before pulling up in a steep climb. Maybe there was a malfunction, or a problem, and they had to pull out of a dive? Maybe it was a miracle they survived? If you don't know you can't say it's proof that modern military planes (large ones) fly low. You can't, really, anyways because it's only doing it for a few seconds before it pulls up.
I can tell ya this much dipchit... I have flown low... and have come back with grass stains along with branches and knicks in a prop from my attempts at flying low. My instructor grounded me for a year when he saw the knicks and made me pay every red cent back for the repairs at the prop shop. I have also been in a B-25 that skimmed so low over a North Carolina field that we cut two swaths in the hay over a thousand feet long. The only reason we didn't go longer was to avoid a hill... after that we dropped back into a valley and literally came back with branches and residue in all areas of resistance.
Originally posted by Krusty
You know what? All the name calling and insulting, I'm surprised you two haven't got this thread closed. I'm done with it. I don't care who claims it, unless you can prove it nobody's going to believe that those bombers flew 30 feet for any extended period of time. From a top gunner who supposedly shot at hay bales that normally don't get taller than a man, to a pilot that found a piece of grass stuck on a pitot tube, but no 60-foot-long smear of grass stain, neither of which is really possible as-told (in other words you don't know the entire story), nothing here has shown they flew scraping the ground (which would have almost killed them) or 30 feet and lower.
Ok, so let me get this straight.... youa re now agreeing that they flew at 30 foot. Just not for extended periods of time....
You're a class a touchhole. Your level of lies knows no bounds, and frankly, I used to think it funny to poke fun at your lies. Now it just disgusts me to think what damage your waste of flesh and bile is going to do to society.
