I’m not IMPLYING anything.
I’m not even second-guessing the pilot. Maybe it flew further than he thought it was going to after he ejected.
I simply made a statement about how things used to be when I was growing up near a Naval Air Station.
“I’m not IMPLYING anything.
I’m not even second-guessing the pilot. Maybe it flew further than he thought it was going to after he ejected.
I simply made a statement about how things used to be when I was growing up near a Naval Air Station.”
Bullsh!t. You’re doing nothing BUT second-guessing the pilot through implication. And your implications are not only unfair and cruel, but also far from “simple” - they are several layers deep and carefully calculated to impune the character and integrity of not only the pilot, but every Naval aviator. And as if that’s not enough, you’re refusing to take any responsibility for the true substance of your comments, hitting and running like a thief in the night after denying everything and throwing dust in everyone’s eyes.
Specifically:
1. By “making a simple statement” about your supposed past “experience” without drawing any conclusions, your statement is utterly meaningless and not even worth posting unless - and only unless - it is used to: draw implications.
2. Your “statement” is in fact dismissable on it’s face by your own admittance, as it consists merely of living “near” a NAS, mostly as a child. Well good for you - and about thirty million other people in the country! I guess that means you’re automatically a freaking expert on emergency fighter flying skills, and how they have changed across decades of high-performance aircraft flight characteristic developments, right?
3. And just in case you want to claim that you have a right to an opinion without having to be an expert on flying, let me point out the extremely advanced concepts several FReepers on this thread made, about planes getting heavier, wings getting smaller, and no direct cables left to pull on in a final moment of courage once the power goes out to the computerized flight controls. In other words: what part of a dropping dead rock don’t you quite understand? You do know that the people on the ground said that the plane came out of the sky in eerie silence, with no engine power, right?
4. And then there is the fact that you not only direct your subversion towards the pilot in this tragedy, but to all Naval aviators today, when you use the phrase: “there was a day.” This is just a flat-out cheap shot and you well know it. It is deliberate psychological sabotage towards the way people think about the modern military.
5. Finally, when you reply to postings on this thread you not only refuse to acknowledge the slightest flaw in your statements, but go on to state a brazen lie about it’s obvious implicatory structure, and then try to pose yourself as victimized.
In sum (and I am not IMPLYING the following statement), your posts here have been lying, cheap-shot, hit-and-runs which try to take advantage of this terrible accident in order to impune all of modern Naval aviation.
To unfairly generalize against the military is subversive, and deserves exposure. But to take advantage of a tragedy to do so is revolting, and deserves contempt.