Another one taking personal potshots. Probably an effort in futility, but OK, here goes.
Really? Reading every word is the only way? Fascinating claim. Are you asserting that this forum does not provide a word search for key words such as "bomber", "air to ground", "tactical strike", etc? Clu4U, with the search function one can research a subject quite thoroughly without reading every word in a thread. Further,
if (a damnably big if) the subject of the F-35's air-to-ground dominated design had been previously asserted and confirmed, why would dozens of folks take such extreme umbrage with the assertion being made again? I assert that it is reasonable to assume that if a particular claim draws such deep and wide spread ire, that the claim is a new one, and not an old one. So mayhaps you should take your own advice and watch that cartoon yourself.
On the HMD, you made the specific claim in 2015 that a Block IV version existed and that it had eyeball tracking. This was false, and I am aware of the source you claimed. I have met the person myself and I suspect that you misunderstood him.
I said that a class mate of mine was president of the company that made the helmet and that he had shown me their development lab where I had seen and worn a lab version that had eyeball tracking. I misspoke when I indicated that was part of the Gen IV (
not "Block IV") design. That was an assumption on my part and it was incorrect, an error I admitted to and conceded years ago.
On the subject of Walts: you just claimed to "have met the person" yourself. If so, what is his name and how do you know him?
And on the subject of schoolboy (not your subject): dredging up stuff from four years ago and then getting it wrong....yeah, pretty schoolboy. Using that four year old stuff you got wrong to justify the unjustifiable? Well below schoolboy.
Try to have a nice day. Mine is wonderful, thank you.