Charles Lindbergh: Neil Armstrong:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Longitude East 114 degrees
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I.M. Esperto:
I'll forgive you for not answering your correspondence because it seems you and I have at least One thing in common. Memories of perfume on the flight deck of a Lockheed 1011. Did you happen to notice that it (the perfume) seemed to linger longer on a dark night when all the white cockpit lights were off. I've often wondered why this was so.
Prince of Dzun
I'll forgive you for not answering your correspondence because it seems you and I have at least One thing in common. Memories of perfume on the flight deck of a Lockheed 1011. Did you happen to notice that it (the perfume) seemed to linger longer on a dark night when all the white cockpit lights were off. I've often wondered why this was so.
Prince of Dzun
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prince of Dzun--
The story going around Muroc at the time was that Bob Hoover had exceeded mach one in a dive with the F86..shortly before Yeager in the X-1. Don't know if this is true or not, but was told this by Bill Bridgeman, the Douglas test pilot that flew the D558-2 later on. I personally met some of the pilots involved with flight test in those early days...it was an exciting time in Southern California.
The story going around Muroc at the time was that Bob Hoover had exceeded mach one in a dive with the F86..shortly before Yeager in the X-1. Don't know if this is true or not, but was told this by Bill Bridgeman, the Douglas test pilot that flew the D558-2 later on. I personally met some of the pilots involved with flight test in those early days...it was an exciting time in Southern California.
Plastic PPRuNer
I. M. Esperto wrote "I Have Control - I have no idea why Wilson entered the USA into WWI. I think it was unjustified, and a mistake."
On Januart 17th 1917 "Room 40" of British Naval Intelligence intercepted and decoded a telegram from the German Foreighn Minister Zimmermann to their Ambassador in Washington. This showed that Germany was attempting to initiate an alliance with Mexico and Japan against America. It was eventually passed to Wilson who had no alternative but to enter the War.
"WE INTEND TO BEGIN UNRESTRlCTED SUBMARINE WARFARE ON THEE FIRST OF FEBRUARY. WE SHALL ENDEAVOR IN SPITE OF THIS TO KEEP THE UNITED STATES NEUTRAL IN THE EVENT OF THIS NOT SUCCEEDING, WE MAKE MEXICO A PROPOSAL OF ALLIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: MAKE WAR TOGETHER, MAKE PEACE TOGETHER, GENEROUS FINANCIAL SUPPORT, AND AN UNDERSTANDING ON OUR PART THAT MEXICO IS TO RECONQUER THE LOST TERRITORY IN TEXAS, NEW MEXICO. AND ARIZONA. THE SETTLEMENT IN DETAIL IS LEFT TO YOU.
YOU WILL INFORM THE PRESIDENT [OF MEXICO] OF THE ABOVE MOST SECRETLY AS SOON AS THE OUTBREAK OF WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES IS CERTAIN AND ADD THE SUGGESTION THAT HE SHOULD, ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, INVITE JAPAN TO IMMEDIATE ADHERENCE AND AT THE SAME TIME MEDIATE BETWEEN JAPAN AND OURSELVES.
PLEASE CALL THE PRESIDENT'S ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE UNRESTRICTED EMPLOYMENT OF OUR SUBMARINES NOW OFFERS THE PROSPECT OF COMPELLING ENGLAND TO MAKE PEACE WITHIN A FEW MONTHS. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT.
ZIMMERMANN."
All this at a time when German was supposedly "negociating" with the USA to maintain peace!
Get a copy of "The Zimmermann Telegram - How the USA Entered the Great War" by Barbara Tuchmann (1958) and read it - then decide whether it was "..unjustified and a mistake".
On Januart 17th 1917 "Room 40" of British Naval Intelligence intercepted and decoded a telegram from the German Foreighn Minister Zimmermann to their Ambassador in Washington. This showed that Germany was attempting to initiate an alliance with Mexico and Japan against America. It was eventually passed to Wilson who had no alternative but to enter the War.
"WE INTEND TO BEGIN UNRESTRlCTED SUBMARINE WARFARE ON THEE FIRST OF FEBRUARY. WE SHALL ENDEAVOR IN SPITE OF THIS TO KEEP THE UNITED STATES NEUTRAL IN THE EVENT OF THIS NOT SUCCEEDING, WE MAKE MEXICO A PROPOSAL OF ALLIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: MAKE WAR TOGETHER, MAKE PEACE TOGETHER, GENEROUS FINANCIAL SUPPORT, AND AN UNDERSTANDING ON OUR PART THAT MEXICO IS TO RECONQUER THE LOST TERRITORY IN TEXAS, NEW MEXICO. AND ARIZONA. THE SETTLEMENT IN DETAIL IS LEFT TO YOU.
YOU WILL INFORM THE PRESIDENT [OF MEXICO] OF THE ABOVE MOST SECRETLY AS SOON AS THE OUTBREAK OF WAR WITH THE UNITED STATES IS CERTAIN AND ADD THE SUGGESTION THAT HE SHOULD, ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, INVITE JAPAN TO IMMEDIATE ADHERENCE AND AT THE SAME TIME MEDIATE BETWEEN JAPAN AND OURSELVES.
PLEASE CALL THE PRESIDENT'S ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE UNRESTRICTED EMPLOYMENT OF OUR SUBMARINES NOW OFFERS THE PROSPECT OF COMPELLING ENGLAND TO MAKE PEACE WITHIN A FEW MONTHS. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT.
ZIMMERMANN."
All this at a time when German was supposedly "negociating" with the USA to maintain peace!
Get a copy of "The Zimmermann Telegram - How the USA Entered the Great War" by Barbara Tuchmann (1958) and read it - then decide whether it was "..unjustified and a mistake".
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mack - This is a sticky wicket indeed.
The American press made it appear that the sinking of the Lusitania was justification to enter the was agasinst the Central Powers. There is no legal basis for this.
The final blow came when it was claimed that the SS Sussex had also been sunk, with American casualties. This was a deliberate lie spread by the Admiralty and the US Press. The Sussex was safe.
http://letters.frontpagemag.com/cgi-...pl?article=750
At this point, we get into international intrigue, The Balfour Declaration, statements by a whistleblower named Ben Freedman, etc..
I don't know if this forum wants to go into this matter. It is quite sensitive. You can investigate it all with Google.
In any even, the USA could have easily handled any problem with Mexico.
The American press made it appear that the sinking of the Lusitania was justification to enter the was agasinst the Central Powers. There is no legal basis for this.
The final blow came when it was claimed that the SS Sussex had also been sunk, with American casualties. This was a deliberate lie spread by the Admiralty and the US Press. The Sussex was safe.
http://letters.frontpagemag.com/cgi-...pl?article=750
At this point, we get into international intrigue, The Balfour Declaration, statements by a whistleblower named Ben Freedman, etc..
I don't know if this forum wants to go into this matter. It is quite sensitive. You can investigate it all with Google.
In any even, the USA could have easily handled any problem with Mexico.
Last edited by I. M. Esperto; 9th Jun 2002 at 20:24.
Plastic PPRuNer
Well, well "Esperto" - Interesting "refutation", interesting page. The "authority" that you quote to buttress what I presume is your view is no less than Mr. Unite Us ([email protected])of Los Angeles, Ca. who writes:
[Mr. Unite Us appears to have mistaken David Horowitz's anti-liberal FrontPage Magazine for an extreme right-wing publication]
"By 1916 Germany had all but won WWI. They offered England a peace settlement. Jews convinced England that they would bring the United States into the war to defeat Germany. All England had to do was support a homeland for Jews in Palenstine. Of course no one decided to ask the Palenstinians about the deal."
[Then follows the text of the Balfour Declaration which I will not burden you with.]
"Back in the U.S. a Jewish Attorney reminded President Wilson of an illicit affair he had during his days at Princeton. This eventually led Wilson to agree to enter the war. The public was falsely told that Germans had sunk the S.S. Sussex. Since the media was dominated by Jews the word spread quickly. Americans Black and White went to war and defeated the Germans. Naturally Germans blamed the Jews for their defeat. In 1933 Jews declared a worldwide boycott against German Merchandize."
Furthermore, you have the effrontery to cite Ben Freedman. Well PPRuNers, why not go to http://sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/freedman.htm and read what this monumentally deluded (or opportunistic) individual was saying in 1961 and judge for yourselves?
You are quite right that the matter is sensitive. It is sensitive because this is Irving style anti-semitic revisionist claptrap. I am certainly not going to engage in a futile dialogue with someone who (I must be charitable here) I would prefer to presume has been "misinformed" and who cites such dubious sources - I'd sooner debate with a member of the Flat-Earth Society.
[Mr. Unite Us appears to have mistaken David Horowitz's anti-liberal FrontPage Magazine for an extreme right-wing publication]
"By 1916 Germany had all but won WWI. They offered England a peace settlement. Jews convinced England that they would bring the United States into the war to defeat Germany. All England had to do was support a homeland for Jews in Palenstine. Of course no one decided to ask the Palenstinians about the deal."
[Then follows the text of the Balfour Declaration which I will not burden you with.]
"Back in the U.S. a Jewish Attorney reminded President Wilson of an illicit affair he had during his days at Princeton. This eventually led Wilson to agree to enter the war. The public was falsely told that Germans had sunk the S.S. Sussex. Since the media was dominated by Jews the word spread quickly. Americans Black and White went to war and defeated the Germans. Naturally Germans blamed the Jews for their defeat. In 1933 Jews declared a worldwide boycott against German Merchandize."
Furthermore, you have the effrontery to cite Ben Freedman. Well PPRuNers, why not go to http://sweetliberty.org/issues/hoax/freedman.htm and read what this monumentally deluded (or opportunistic) individual was saying in 1961 and judge for yourselves?
You are quite right that the matter is sensitive. It is sensitive because this is Irving style anti-semitic revisionist claptrap. I am certainly not going to engage in a futile dialogue with someone who (I must be charitable here) I would prefer to presume has been "misinformed" and who cites such dubious sources - I'd sooner debate with a member of the Flat-Earth Society.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mac - I did not post what you did because I felt it might be against forum rules, but you went ahead anyway.
Don't blame me. I did not write any of it.
As to the veracity of it, we can all make up our minds.
Don't blame me. I did not write any of it.
As to the veracity of it, we can all make up our minds.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think any part of the last three posts here have anything to do with the subject. Indeed, they are leaning too far towards politics, which as you must know, have NO place on PPRuNe. Please deisist from further comments on this and return to the subject.
It's a good thread and I would like to see it maintain it's hitherto high level of interest value. I would not enjoy having to close it.
CamelPilot
Aircraft History and NostalgiaModerator
[email protected]
It's a good thread and I would like to see it maintain it's hitherto high level of interest value. I would not enjoy having to close it.
CamelPilot
Aircraft History and NostalgiaModerator
[email protected]
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a fascinating thread! I don't normally venture into this forum, sticking to the flight test forum where I fit in quite nicely low down in the food chain.
The topic seems to have drifted off a bit, so may I add my two cents?
Looking at both Lindbergh's and Armstrong's acheivements it is perhaps worth remembering that those present at the Quiet Birdmen's dinner were dining shortly after the first moon-landing. As has been previously mentioned, many of those in the room grew up with Charles Lindburgh as their boyhood hero, whereas Armstrong was the new kid on the block. At the time of Apollo 11, American was emroilled in a bitter conflict in SE Asia, there was social unrest within the US and the concept of the anti-hero had been established. For these reasons, my view is that the impact that Apollo 11 had was lessened as it took place in a more cynical time. Let us remember that Lindbergh was probably the first "Global Celebrity". For these reasons, I believe he received the greater applause, as he was already an historic figure in the aviation world.
In terms of guts, daring, call it what you will, any pilot who is willing to climb into a craft, not knowing if they will see their loved ones again, is deserving of respect, no matter what their motives, political allegiances, race, gender, shoe size or what have you.
Yes Armstrong's achievement was the culmination of a national effort ( as opposed to Lindbergh's smaller project ), but from a professional technical perspective, Armstrong was more experienced, highly trained and skilled in the science of aviation, and had flown real-life combat missions in fighters from carriers, in an age when jets were still un-reliable. He flew rocket powered aircraft ( one of only two astronauts to do so ) and holds a first degree and masters in aeronautical fields.
I think in centuries to come, when history allows us to properly place events in their correct context, Armstong's name may well be the name which all qoute in respect of the last century, in much the same way as we remember Christopher Columbus.
SW, I hope he is your uncle, give him a pat on the back from the boys at Boscombe Down and Farnborough, he's welcome on my aircraft any time.
The topic seems to have drifted off a bit, so may I add my two cents?
Looking at both Lindbergh's and Armstrong's acheivements it is perhaps worth remembering that those present at the Quiet Birdmen's dinner were dining shortly after the first moon-landing. As has been previously mentioned, many of those in the room grew up with Charles Lindburgh as their boyhood hero, whereas Armstrong was the new kid on the block. At the time of Apollo 11, American was emroilled in a bitter conflict in SE Asia, there was social unrest within the US and the concept of the anti-hero had been established. For these reasons, my view is that the impact that Apollo 11 had was lessened as it took place in a more cynical time. Let us remember that Lindbergh was probably the first "Global Celebrity". For these reasons, I believe he received the greater applause, as he was already an historic figure in the aviation world.
In terms of guts, daring, call it what you will, any pilot who is willing to climb into a craft, not knowing if they will see their loved ones again, is deserving of respect, no matter what their motives, political allegiances, race, gender, shoe size or what have you.
Yes Armstrong's achievement was the culmination of a national effort ( as opposed to Lindbergh's smaller project ), but from a professional technical perspective, Armstrong was more experienced, highly trained and skilled in the science of aviation, and had flown real-life combat missions in fighters from carriers, in an age when jets were still un-reliable. He flew rocket powered aircraft ( one of only two astronauts to do so ) and holds a first degree and masters in aeronautical fields.
I think in centuries to come, when history allows us to properly place events in their correct context, Armstong's name may well be the name which all qoute in respect of the last century, in much the same way as we remember Christopher Columbus.
SW, I hope he is your uncle, give him a pat on the back from the boys at Boscombe Down and Farnborough, he's welcome on my aircraft any time.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB you make some good points.
However, it is VERY IMPORTANT to point out that you will not find a more patriotic group than Quiet Birdmen (QB's).
Yes, there was an anti-war movement around that time, but there is no relationship to this movement and the QB's.
IMHO I still believe that if Lindbergh received a more generous applause, it was because he was a Charter Member of the QB's, i.e. one of our own.
However, it is VERY IMPORTANT to point out that you will not find a more patriotic group than Quiet Birdmen (QB's).
Yes, there was an anti-war movement around that time, but there is no relationship to this movement and the QB's.
IMHO I still believe that if Lindbergh received a more generous applause, it was because he was a Charter Member of the QB's, i.e. one of our own.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Check 6,
I in no way intended to imply that The Quiet Birdmen were/are anything but patriotic, and I know they are quite the opposite. My apologies if my posting gave that impression.
My point was that Lindbergh was a boyhood hero to those in the room, whereas Armstrong had come along during a different era, hence attitudes, no matter how patriotic, would have changed, hence the difference in perception ( IMHO ).
Regards from Blighty, and a Happy Independence day to our freinds in the USA.
Matt
I in no way intended to imply that The Quiet Birdmen were/are anything but patriotic, and I know they are quite the opposite. My apologies if my posting gave that impression.
My point was that Lindbergh was a boyhood hero to those in the room, whereas Armstrong had come along during a different era, hence attitudes, no matter how patriotic, would have changed, hence the difference in perception ( IMHO ).
Regards from Blighty, and a Happy Independence day to our freinds in the USA.
Matt
