Evan Burton

I didn't know about the MLK earlier attempts.

There was a programme on cable recently about the assassination attempts on Hitler; there were over 40!

Now, if your IP were blocked from a website, you'd see something like this:

Funny how some people are so frightened by nothing. Still, if someone wanted to visit such a website you just need to use a proxy or an IP masker. Or employ your evil minions to visit the site for you....

The 'savings' the departments have to make are the killer. We've already had our group's budget by 60%, and that was well prior to the White Paper.

I think we'll lose the fourth AWD, and the number of F-35 might drop a little (down to about 70-80?). I can't see them cutting the number of ASW helos unless they want to accept the capability loss. I would prefer to see the existing two LPAs kept along with the new LHDs, but they'll probably retire the LPAs and double-hat the LHDs as C2 platforms. The Caribou replacement will get delayed - again. Perhaps cut the number of subs by 2? Some base closures would free up some money but there is always the political element - no pollie want to lose a base in their electorate. I don't know what savings could be made by Army...

PART TWO

July 13, 1969: Cape Canaveral -- Got to Sea Missile motel. Walked to the beach; beautiful sun, sand, surf and space. Could see the gantry towers of the Eastern Test Range.

Went back to (highway) A1A where we continued walking interminably all the way to the Hilton Hotel [we did not have a car rental scheduled until the next day]. There we signed up for 'reservations' to the Moon with TIA and saw Walter Cronkite lounging by the pool. Walking back, we stopped at the Mousetrap (bar) where we saw Bruce McCandless and F. Curtis Michel again.

July 14, 1969: Went to KSC News Center where we picked up our press passes and 5 'tons' of news releases. They had quite a news set-up [with long tables piled with information from NASA and contractors, and other tables with rows of telephones. Some of the 'goodies' included the official Apollo 11 Flight Plan and the Apollo 11 Press Kit and folders from contractors touting their contributions to the mission.]

We signed up for the long press tour which covers 4 hours. There are a large number of foreign journalists here and the babble of a number of different languages is audible. We go on press bus tour with 3 Spaniards, Swiss, and Belgian journalists. There are nine of us in a Volkswagen-type bus. It's hotter than hell outside. Our guide [a volunteer contractor employee] has worked here since 1962.

[We drive by the Mercury and Gemini launch pad sites, enter the Mercury mission control center (no longer in use), pass the pad which was the site of the Apollo 1 fire, and visit inside the Vehicle Assembly Building, taking an elevator inside to the top of the interior of world's largest structure for a dizzying view looking down.]

We drive within a mile from the Apollo 11 rocket. (Fig. 3) There is a gray mobile service structure around it and a red tower on a huge concrete pad. God, it is huge!

The crawler carries 6 million pounds at 1 mph. It is a two-story, large gray structure. (Fig. 4) It dwarfs people standing near it. We see the wire escape system and fire escape vehicles near the pad.

Later, we go to a news conference at the press center with KSC Director Kurt Debus, Manned Spaceflight Center Director George Gilruth, Marshall Director Wernher von Braun and George Mueller, head of manned spaceflight. (Fig 5)

"The landing will be a beginning, not an end... We will, in due time, have a semi-permanent or permanent base on the Moon," von Braun said.

Asked to what event he would compare the landing, von Braun said he would compare it to aquatic life crawling on land for the first time.

Ate dinner at Hilton. Later, Aldrin, Armstrong and Collins interviewed by reporters by remote. [We were at the news center and could see the astronauts, who were in isolation, on television monitors.]

Took press bus at night to observation site to see Saturn V lit up by searchlights. A bright white jewel in the dark night. searchlights shooting out at angles. (Fig. 6)

Apollo 11 Diary

By David Chudwin, M.D.

PART ONE

In 1969 I was a sophomore at the University of Michigan who spent much of my time reporting and writing for the Michigan Daily, the independent student newspaper. As someone interested in space exploration, science, and medicine, I was somewhat of an anomaly compared to my humanities-oriented compatriots. So when the announcement came that Apollo 11 would be the first attempt to land on the Moon, I immediately sought to cover the event in person, even though as a 19 year-old sophomore I was low on the totem pole at the Daily and NASA would usually not accredit college journalists.

My big break came when one of the seniors, Jim Heck, went to Washington, D.C. as an editor of the College Press Service, a group of university student newspapers which shared stories and resources. He went to bat for me and I received the following letter:

June 17, 1969

Dear Dave:

I'm now editor of the College Press Service wire network and it is only after this, and two weeks of red tape, talking to high NASA officials, etc. that I have finally gotten you and your friend some press credentials.

A few notes: 1) Please realize that your authorization for the Cape Kennedy press group is extremely important. NASA has never authorized any scholastic, non-scientific or other people for press credentials. It took a two-page letter informing the (NASA) public relations of our importance and impact to get the OK...

You received credentials over newsmen from several African countries and Kuwait. You will be the only ungraduated people there. Be nice to our capitalistic friends...

I immediately arranged air tickets to the Melbourne FL airport, a car rental, and a reservation at the Sea Missile Motel in Cocoa Beach, somewhat seedy but one of the few places that had any rooms left for this historic event. A fellow space enthusiast friend would accompany me.

I decided to write a diary of the trip, and here are some annotated excerpts of my Apollo 11 launch adventure:

"July 13, 1969: Left at 9:10 a.m. and arrived at O'Hare after pleasant drive in beautiful weather. An older lady was standing next to us. Glanced at her ticket and saw the name was Rose Cernan (mother of Astronaut Eugene Cernan). Talked to Mrs. Cernan for a second and then loaded on plane. Miracle of miracles! The plane took off on time!

Melbourne Airport -- Guess what? Saw (Astronaut) Jim Irwin (in his blue NASA flight suit) and other men saying hi to Mrs. Cernan. (Fig. 1) Went to change return flight reservation and Mrs. Cernan came up to us. She asked where we go to school and introduced us to Al Bean, Bruce McCandless, Charlie Duke and Irwin. Bean signed an autograph. They're at the airport meeting their wives. Bean was friendly, and said this was the time to come here.

"I'm next," Bean said. They readily posed for pictures. (Fig. 2) Missed airline bus so we had to wait 45 minutes. Waiting, we watched the astronauts (as they waited too).

Fig. 1: Astronauts Alan Bean and Jim Irwin (right) at Melbourne, Florida airport on July 13, 1969 prior to Apollo 11 launch

Fig. 2: Astronauts Alan Bean, Jim Irwin, Charlie Duke and Bruce McCandless (left to right) on July 13, 1969, before Apollo 11 launch

Whilst waiting for the Apollo 10 flight, I thought I might relay some peoples recollections of the era. Please feel free to add your own:

I was 13 years old at the time of the Apollo 11 mission and living in Nova Scotia, Canada. The 'Eagle' touched down at 5:17 pm (local time), much to the consternation of my mother who was busy trying to prepare supper. Just like Tom Hanks would later relate in interviews about his "From the Earth to the Moon" TV series, I had my models of the Command Service Module, Lunar Module and Saturn V rocket close at hand while I had claimed the comfy living room armchair for the occasion. My family gathered around our old B&W television which was tuned to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), one of only two stations which were available to us back then. Much of the CBC's coverage consisted of a feed from CBS, so we got to watch Walter Cronkite's famous 'Oh Boy!' commentary. My prized 3" reel-to-reel audio tape recorder (you could get all of 1 hour on a single reel) was busy taping a local CBC radio station carrying NBC's coverage with Jay Barbree.

The entire family congregated again a few hours later for the moonwalk, just before midnight, and watched Neil & Buzz's first steps. I stayed up for the entire 30 hour televised stretch, from lunar landing to liftoff, stealing a moment every now and then to go outside and gaze in wonder at the moon, filled with awe that two human beings were actually up there, living and working on its surface. In this day of CNN and other all-news networks, it should be remembered that the coverage of this event was in itself history in-the-making - TV's longest continuous coverage of a planned event.

My interest in space began with the flight of Apollo 8. When I heard that this was the first manned launch of the world's biggest rocket, the Saturn V, I was sure that one of its million parts would go wrong with disastrous results. Thank God it didn't. I watched and I was forever hooked. A real space junkie, religiously watching each mission after that, coaxing my Mom to let me stay home from school (recurrent cases of 'moon sickness', no doubt), clipping out every newspaper, Life, Time or Newsweek article I could find (now faded yellow with age) and trying to tape as much of the audio coverage as I could (few private individuals could afford a video recorder back then). By Apollo 14, I had earned enough money working at a grocery store to buy a 4-track 7" reel-to-reel recorder (which allowed one to put up to 12 hours on a single tape!) and had built a 15" Heathkit color TV. For Apollo 16, I had added a new-generation 'cassette' recorder to my arsenal (don't forget that the venerable 8-track was still popular at the time). And, of course, I had acquired a VHS video recorder by the time the first Space Shuttle flew in 1981. It has always annoyed me that the more recording resources I could afford, the less TV & radio coverage there was available to tape. (Alas, it is also a bit disconcerting to realize that not only are reel-to-reel tapes obsolete these days but so too are audio cassettes as well as VHS tapes.)

But the effect of the Apollo program on me was profound. Because of it, I entered into a career in science becoming a radio astronomer where I continue to enjoy the technical challenge of building instruments to investigate deep space from the Earth - perhaps recognizing the likelihood that I would never have the opportunity to leave its surface (although I did make the first cut for the Canadian Astronaut Program nearly 25 years ago). In tribute to Project Apollo, we named our son (now 21) after astronaut David Scott who commanded Apollo 15, my favorite of all the lunar flights.

In many ways, I feel sorry for the children of today - they will never experience the monumental awe and global celebration that we were privileged to witness back in 1969. Strange, isn't it, that although Apollo - the pinnacle of mankind's technical achievement - which occurred nearly 40 years ago - is now looked on as though it was something out of our deep past rather than a part of our future. It is almost treated like it was a chapter out of ancient history, similar to other great accomplishments of civilization - like the building of the Pyramids or the Great Wall. Although it might not seem so today, 500 years from now I'm convinced the moon landings will undoubtedly be remembered as the most significant event to have occurred in the 20th century.

Yet many people today are convinced the moon landings never happened. Young and old alike have grown to distrust government and belief in conspiracies has become rampant. A friend of mine, the documentary filmmaker who created the "Rocket Science" TV series shown in Canada, was distressed to be told by a seemingly bright kid that "Do you really expect we'd develop the technology to go to the moon and then just abandon it?". The fact that we are not there now, or that we have not gone back, to disbelievers is all the evidence they need to prove that we have never actually been there.

For myself, I have great admiration for every single one of the 400,000 people who worked on the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs and collectively made man's greatest adventure possible.

I think that traditionally our military spending has been around 2.0-2.2%. I don't believe it to be some "arms race" - I think it is a slight increase because of a number of major capitol purchases rolling around at the same time. That is simply a (biased) opinion at the moment. Let me do some research and see if I can support my opinion with some facts.

THE AFTERMATH

The prominent words - ROYAL NAVY - on all the aircraft did much to emphasise the Navy's air arm and its capabilities to a very wide audience. The event was very closely followed by the British public.

Few get to ride on a gun carriage (when alive)

Few get to be interviewed by Cliff Michelmore

Few have a Royal Marine band wheeled out to do the honours. Brian Davies, Vice Admiral Sir Richard Janvrin, Peter Goddard

VICKERS TROPHY GOES TO THE ROYAL NAVY

Sir Leslie Rowan presented the Vickers 'Alcock and Brown' trophy and a cheque for £1000 to Lieutenant Commander Peter M Goddard RN whose time of 5 hr. 11 min. 57 sec. was the fastest overall West-to-East in the Daily Mail Transatlantic Air Race 1969. The occasion was a celebration dinner at the Royal Garden Hotel, Kensington on Wednesday, 14th May when trophies and prizes were awarded to winners in the 21 categories of this Air Race.

HRH Prince Philip was at the Reception beforehand and met and talked with winners and sponsors. He discussed flight details of the record Navy Phantom flight with Lieutenant Commander Goddard, Senior Observer of 892 Squadron (which flight also won the Daily Mail £5000 prize).

Mr. Dennis Healey, Secretary of State for Defence was present and the guest list contained names of many personalities well known in flying, past and present.

AND WHAT OF TODAY?

Of those still with us the team leader, Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo KCB, plus Commander Shorty Hamilton RN and Lieutenant Commander Robbie Roberts RN all enjoy sound health.

Of the flying crews only Alan Hickling and Hugh Drake are still complete. Two of the Pilots, Lieutenant Commander Brian Davies AFC RN and Captain Doug Borrowman RN are deceased. Their Observers, Captain Peter Goddard RN and Lieutenant Commander Paul Waterhouse RN, whilst both retired, are in healthy spirits.

Peter Goddard rushes on to the winning time - maybe he had heard about the champagne for the earlier runs

Slick helicopter flying and a great effort by Peter gave us a top to top time of 5 hours 11 minutes. Air race time 4 hours 46 minutes and 57 seconds and a new world speed record for the flight: 723.8 mph

The successful teams and the fastest aircraft XT858 - the Phantom F2 of 892 Naval Air Squadron

BD: Looking back, let me say that without the administration of Captain Lygo and his team, the enthusiastic support of our home base Yeovilton, the close co-operation of the RAF and their Victor tankers, the assistance of the United States Navy and many other people who helped us, we would not have accomplished anything.

Phantom stopped and Observer on his way

The second of the contestants, Hugh Drake, exiting the helicopter in the bottom picture on to the specially built platform

. . . AND THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST

Meanwhile, back at NAS Floyd Bennett, Peter Goddard and myself were looking rather anxiously at the forecast weather for Thursday and Friday. A frontal system was approaching the New York area from South West and was forecast to continue up the East Coast of U.S.A. and Canada progressively blotting out Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Also I was halfway through a head cold. Captain Lygo on the transatlantic phone call suggested the best way through was for me to turn in with 3 aspirins, lots of blankets and sweat it out. I was fit to fly by Friday, but the weather was not! Peter and I began to despair of ever managing to race the last aircraft at all.

While we were waiting to go, we digested the information received from the second aircraft. They had been able to find more favourable temperatures and with the extra tail wind, they had 'made' fuel throughout the trip, indicating that we would be able to go faster in the last aircraft.

Needless to say on Saturday we received the 'go' for Sunday, the last day of the race. The day dawned rather miserably in New York, but thank goodness the weather was reasonable elsewhere. Our mean tail wind for the flight was forecast as 23 knots.

The New York terminal arrangements were good and Peter Goddard clipped another 2 minutes off Hugh Drake's time. Phantom 001 climbed out as planned.

The first refuelling went smoothly. We had expected layered cloud and turbulence but luckily there was no sign of this, and we completed the refuelling without snags. It was encouraging to see the enthusiasm of Flight Lieutenant Jock Carroll in the Victor at this Newfoundland rendezvous. His aircraft had been suitably decorated with a two foot high dayglo 'FLY NAVY' right across the port side.

The Atlantic crossing went well although we lost two minutes on the planned time. However, we managed to push the third rendezvous Eastwards, thus cutting down the refuelling time. On the last lap, we really made up time. We planned to stay at 40,000 feet to get the most favourable true air speed and with the aid of a 50 knot tail wind we hoped to stay abreast of the distance gone/fuel remaining problem. All worked well and with the occasional climb to 45,000 feet to recover from excessive fuel consumption we averaged 960 knots, true air speed (1100 mph) to Lundy Island.

Finally on towards Wisley and here again, by remaining lower than planned altitude, we managed to pick up an extra 80 knots and landed in 4 hours 46 minutes, luckily without bursting any tyres.

The race to the top by Paul Waterhouse

Rightly so, the First Sea Lord Admiral LeFanu pours the drinks. On the left Flag Officer Naval Air Command, Vice Admiral Sir Richard Janvrin waits for his share

BD: We learned a great deal from the first flight, but in particular it showed us that to better this time, we would have to look for warmer temperatures on the subsonic leg across the Atlantic, and colder temperatures on the last leg to achieve better true air speeds.

On Tuesday the American global weather system was forecasting a slight improvement in the mean tail wind for the next two days but also a progressive deterioration in the diversion airfields in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Within the light of this information it was decided to launch the second aircraft on Wednesday with a forecast mean tail winds of 19 knots.

All went well with the New York terminal procedures and Hugh Drake, the Observer, managed to knock one and a half minutes off the time. Alan Hickling, the pilot, took off in Phantom 003 at 0814. At the first rendezvous, 003 was having radio troubles.

Difficulties arose during the hand over from the Boston air traffic radar to Moncton Military Radar. This and a series of other minor difficulties resulted in the refuelling being conducted 4 minutes late. After a somewhat hectic manoeuvre to join up with the tanker, the rest of the flight went smoothly.

AH: The particular event that I remember most was the missed tanker connection. After leaving the mainland USA we accelerated to Mach 1.6 with a designated spot and time to meet up with the Tanker. The RAF (as it happened unfortunately) were being particularly helpful by heading our way so they could top us up earlier. You can imagine my shock when we saw the Tanker doing say 400 knots passing us two miles abeam while we proceeded at 1500 kts (or so) up the designated track - this caused a little bit of a hassle and time getting plugged in - resulting in less fuel at the destination.

The 1000 miles (more or less) needing Dead Reckoning over the Atlantic must seem strange now with HF and GPS, and INS. Apart from DR the only help came from the sun - we glued a black cotton thread to the canopy from the starboard canopy rail over to the port rail. And preplanned that on our heading, when the shadow of the thread on the starboard side fell over that on the port then we would be at such-and-such a longitude. On back-tracking after landing we reckoned we were within 25 nm of our sun shadow estimate - all you need for a little comfort half-way across the Pond.

BD: Alan and Hugh were able to maintain a high true air speed in mid Atlantic in warmer temperatures and they achieved a very fast final leg. Touch down at Wisley was 4 hours 53 minutes after take off. Hugh Drake, saved seconds by side stepping the Customs man and the Wessex, superbly handled, made the hop to the GPO Tower in 11 minutes.

The second crew: Hugh Drake and Al Hickling

The second of the contestants: The Phantom arrives at Wisley

THE FLIGHT PLAN

Teams would fly in reverse order with Team 3 setting off first.

BD: The profile finally selected would take us out of New York on a maximum power climb to 33,000 feet, where we would cruise at 650 mph to Nanlucket Island. Here we were to accelerate to 1100 mph and climb to 45,000 feet or the first supersonic leg to our refuelling point 60 miles South of Nova Scotia. Having refuelled at reduced speed, we then planned to accelerate for our second supersonic leg to Newfoundland. At this point we were to effect a subsonic rendezvous with the tanker, top up, climb to 39,000 feet and settle down to a 650 miles an hour cruise across the 'pond' using the great circle route to 52° N 20° W and our third rendezvous. This was to be the longest, most boring and yet, most anxious leg, since it involved 900 miles of Dead Reckoning navigation and accuracy depended on the forecast winds.

The last join up with the Victor tanker was to be made under the surveillance of HMS NUBIAN'S radar, to enable us to change altitude from 39 to 33,000 feet in the busy North Atlantic airline routes.

BD: From this point onwards we planned to fly around the South of Eire at up to 1100 mph, decelerating to subsonic speeds 45 miles West of Lundy Island. From here to Wisley, the terminal airfield, we would fly at 700 miles an hour, finishing up with a straight in approach to the runway.

The total still air time for this profile was calculated at 5 hours one minute. The upper wind forecast for this route during the second week of May was a 50% chance of a mean tail wind of 50 knots, which indicated our flight time would be around 4 hours 40 minutes, but more of this later.

BD: Meanwhile, a great deal of planning was underway by the team headed by Captain Lygo.

RR: I was on my last few months in the Fleet Air Arm having just relinquished Command of 849 Naval Air Squadron.

As luck would have it, I was selected to become Team Manager (New York) for the Phantom entry in the Great Air Race. I suspect I was chosen by Captain Lygo because I had good knowledge of the United States, having been on the British Navy Staff some two years previously.

I arrived in New York and met up with a great team who were to fly the Tooms across the Atlantic. My first and most important job was to arrange for unlimited supplies of duty free from the Embassy in Washington. Easy if you knew how but quite beyond some of the other non-RN competitors in the Race. Despite seeking an extension of my Service their Lordships reminded me that I was due to retire on the 5th April but I would now be required to retire two days after the completion of the Air Race.

BD: Suitable helicopter sites were now also surveyed in New York to determine the optimum procedures to use between the Empire State Building and NAS Floyd Bennett. These culminated in the selection of the 30th Street West Heliport on Manhattan Island.

Motorcycles were to also be used from the Empire State Building to the Manhattan Heliport, and the race runners, the Observer aircrew, underwent a quick PT course for the 85 yard sprint from the Moss site to the GPO Tower.

FINAL PREPARATIONS

BD: The last ten days prior to our deployment to Naval Air Station Floyd Bennett were busy ones. We flew each flight leg profile individually to double check the performance data. RNAS Yeovilton became used to seeing the Phantoms diving at the runway, stopping as quickly as possible and the eager Observer leaping out of the back seat as the aircraft came to a halt. A final practice of this phase was staged just prior to our departure for the USA involving the Wessex helicopter we were to use in London, flown by Lieutenant John Dines.

Thursday 24th April provided us with the suitable weather to fly the three Phantoms to New York. The flights were more or less uneventful, and with one refuelling per aircraft, we stopped off at Argentia, Newfoundland, before carrying on to NAS Floyd Bennett, NY.

The flying teams:

From the left: Peter Goddard; Paul Waterhouse; Doug Borrowman; Brian Davies; Al Hickling and Hugh Drake

In New York we were welcomed by our small maintenance team, with the Air Engineer Officer, Lieutenant Commander Alan Ducker, in charge and set about organising a programme of terminal practices between the Empire State Building and the airfield. The maintenance team did a superb job on our aircraft and we were able to fly one last minute check flight each and to exercise our departure profile with the New York Air Traffic Control organisation.

A point here about the operation of the race which was controlled by Captain Lygo and his team at RAF Strike Command Headquarters. Although we were obviously looking for a favourable wind, the decision to go or not to go basically depended on the forecast weather in London, Goose Bay (the tanker base) and at our diversion airfields in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and at Shannon. We needed 3 miles of visibility and a cloud base of 1500 feet at all these places.

RACING THE PHANTOM

The decision to go on the 4th May, the first day of the race, was made at 8 pm (New York time) the night before.

Although there was a slack weather system giving a mean tail wind of 9 knots, the excellent weather conditions could not be ignored. At 4 am the 'go' was confirmed and our first crew, Lieutenant Commander Doug Borrowman and Lieutenant Paul Waterhouse made preparations to depart. Their main objectives were to get to Wisley adhering to the basic plan, while at the same time finding out where we might be able to save time on the subsequent two flights.

Paul Waterhouse clocked out at 0800 Sunday from the top of the Empire State Building. Unluckily he slipped up on the marble floored foyer loosing seconds and on the way to the helipad his BSA motorcycle hit every red light on 33rd street. Yet he leapt into the cockpit at 0815 and Phantom 002 roared down the runway, turned left and rapidly disappeared out of sight.

Number one away - wheels coming up

The first section to Nantucket Island was uneventful. However, the equipment giving the range between the Phantom and tanker did not lock on at the first rendezvous, but using bearings and ground control radar, the refuelling was successfully completed. The leg to Newfoundland ran smoothly and Doug and Paul managed to pick up 2 minutes on the planned flight time, but again the rendezvous was hampered by lack of ranges between aircraft. On the transatlantic leg some time was lost due to cold temperatures and an inability to maintain the planned true air speed.

Bearings from HMS NUBIAN were obtained at about 300 miles and the final rendezvous went well.

It was not until they set out for the last leg that they hit their first real problem.

Temperatures at 40 to 45,000 feet were 12° C above standard, resulting in an inability to fly at 1100 miles an hour while keeping abreast of the required fuel consumption.

The arrival at Wisley was spectacular, as Doug unintentionally burst both tyres during the landing run trying to stop quickly.

Yet the flying time beat the existing world record by 26 minutes and Paul Waterhouse's top to top time of five and a half hours was certainly not going to be easy to beat.

Air race time: 5 hours 3 minutes and 18 seconds

I found this article, and thought it was great reading, and should be shared. Such a pity that nothing like this could happen today.

THE STORY OF THE DAILY MAIL TRANS-ATLANTIC AIR RACE

On the 11th May 1969 a Royal Navy Phantom of 892 Squadron, competing in the Daily Mail Air Race, set up a new world air speed record between New York and London with a time of 4 hours 46 minutes.

The aircraft's Observer, Lieutenant Commander Peter Goddard, achieved the fastest overall time in the Race getting from the top of the Empire State Building to the top of the Post Office Tower in 5 hours 11 minutes.

It was the third time during the 8 days of the race that this point to point transatlantic record had been broken by a Naval Phantom.

Those contributing to this item were the "planners and the participants".

892 Naval Air Squadron would later embark in the aircraft carrier HMS ARK ROYAL (as shown above with an 892 Phantom being launched from the "waist" catapult).

This then is the story of the Daily Mail Trans-Atlantic Air Race.

************************

THE STORY OF THE RACE.

Notes: The late Lieutenant Commander Brian Davies, the Commanding Officer of the Squadron, has left on record his account (BD) of these remarkable flights which so captured the imagination of the Country and gave the Royal Navy such a resounding victory in the Air Race. Some of his original script has been adjusted in a very minor way without destroying the impact of his words to give the story its chronological merit.

One of the planning group and team, Commander David "Shorty" Hamilton RN (D"S"H) contributes his memories as does Lieutenant Commander Paul Waterhouse RN (PW), one of the contestants, Lieutenant Commander "Robbie" Roberts RN (RR), the New York co-ordinator and Lieutenant "Al" Hickling RN (AH) who is the last surviving Phantom Pilot from the Race.

BD: In June 1968, the Phantom squadron at the Royal Naval Air Station at Yeovilton, Somerset, submitted a proposal to enter the Daily Mail Transatlantic Air Race. The initial plan envisaged 5 in-flight refuellings between New York and London, giving six supersonic legs at 1100 miles an hour and flight time of about 4 hours 20 minutes.

During the next six months the plan progressed no further and very little was heard about it. However, in January of 1969, the project leapt back into life, when the Flag Officer Naval Air Command directed us to research further the possibilities of entering for the race and to look into the logistic support requirements. The participation of the Fleet Air Arm would be used for operational training.

PW: In reality it was never strictly an 'Aircraft Race' as such but was to be the time it took for an individual ('a runner') to travel from the top of the Empire State Building in New York to the top of the Post office Tower in London or visa versa but the chosen mode on getting from A to B or B to A for some competitors had to have an element of air travel in it. This is where different 'categories' of air travel/aircraft applied. Later there would be minor disputes about the actual flight times, broken records and all that, but these were almost incidental at the end of the day! The winners were 'the runners' for their personal times from tower top to tower top being what counted. The categories of aircraft used to transport these 'runners' were supersonic, subsonic, scheduled airliners, single engine, multi-engined, light aircraft etc.

D"S"H: I had decided to leave the Service and to emigrate to Australia having returned to the United Kingdom in September 1968 from an exchange appointment out there and as I was not to be released for about a year I was an ideal odd job man. I was thus one of the team charged with the overall organisation of the Navy's participation in the Race.

The Head of the Team was the then Captain Ray Lygo who was between appointments and he was allocated the task of overseeing the operation and I was made his “chief-of-staff” He did the political work and I did the rest !!

The first matter had already been decided, which of the Navy's fixed-wing aircraft was to be used, and that was obvious, MacDonnel Phantoms of 892 squadron, (I had commanded the squadron when it flew the Sea Vixen). The aircrew were still working up with the new aircraft so it was a race to get them fully operational in time.

The team was formed:

Front row: Captain Raymond D Lygo RN

Second row: Lieutenant Commander Robbie Roberts RN and Commander David M Hamilton RN

Third row (the flyers) Lieutenant Paul Waterhouse RN (Observer) and Lieutenant Commander Doug Borrowman RN (Pilot) (Team 3) - Lieutenant Commander Peter M Goddard RN (Observer) and Lieutenant Commander Brian Davies AFC RN (Pilot) (Team 1) - Lieutenant Hugh Drake RN (Observer) and Lieutenant Al Hickling RN (Pilot) Team 2)

Back row: Lieutenant Commander D E Fairweather RN (Public Relations Officer)

For the purists the aircraft on display are those from the Phantom Intensive Flying Trials Unit (700P) at the Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton which would become the front-line Naval Air Squadron, 892. All the flight crews would join 892 Naval Air Squadron

BD: Between the time of the proposal and our deployment to New York on the 24th April, life became hectic. The plan shifted through several phases and our initial flight profile involving 5 refuellings became impracticable since it required too much support and there were disadvantages from a flight safety point of view. After hours of planning and calculations we decided on 3 air to air refuellings, using Victor tankers of 55 Squadron from RAF Marham.

BD: Having settled this aspect we now had to refine the profile. Our initial planning had been based on limited performance figures calculated from one or two supersonic flights, and from data obtained during our fuel consumption work carried out for the Phantom trials.

February and March saw us flying out into the Atlantic to the South of Ireland between 40 and 50,000 feet at speeds well above Mach One to really pin down the fuel consumption figures and then meeting up with another Phantom to formulate a technique of accurately rendezvousing with a tanker at these high speeds.

Fortunately both the Phantom and the Victor have range and direction finding equipment to assist joining up. In addition we depended on ground or ship radar to control the aircraft during rendezvous in the event that the airborne equipment failed.

Two procedures had to be devised to allow for supersonic and subsonic rendezvous, and after formulating them, Phantom against Phantom, we found that the Victor tankers were able to fit perfectly with our ideas. We eventually got the whole thing down to a fine art and were able to adjust the tankers holding pattern, and to turn them onto our track to fit in with the fuel requirements at each rendezvous.

Practice refuelling with a Victor tanker

D"S"H: The landing site was the next big question, how when and where.

There was also some discussion as to the ground mode of transport and it was generally agreed that the final phase of the journey to the PO Tower would be riding pillion on the back of a Royal Marine despatch riders motorbike.

There was a bit of practicing carried out and the Observers who would be actually running the Race were unanimous in their agreement that they would choose a night deck landing as an alternative every time.

Also the Phantoms had to land somewhere as close as possible to the Post Office Tower and Captain Lygo obtained permission to use Wisely, a satellite airfield owned by BAE. [and a name made famous because of the Royal Horticultural Gardens] This had the advantage that there would be no hold up by other air traffic, and a straight in approach was possible.

Having had a look around for a suitable helicopter landing site it became obvious that most were a motor cycle ride away and one of the nearest, the railway yards at St.Pancras, was knee deep in coal dust and quite unsuitable.

D"S"H: There was, however a building site right by the Tower and if we could get permission to use it and the helicopter pilot said he could do it, all our problems were solved. I approached the site manager and, luckily he was a progressive type and said he thought it would be great and would contact his boss. I suggested that we could arrange some positive advertising for his Company.

The Moss building site adjacent to the Post Office Tower - chosen!

D"S"H: In the meantime Captain Lygo arranged for the helicopter aspect and we were allocated the machine and a pilot Lieutenant John Dines RN from the Royal Naval Air Station Lee on Solent. He had operated out of jungle clearings during the Borneo troubles and was a top notch pilot for the event. He felt the site was fine so it was agreed that the Phantoms would land at Wisely where the chopper would be waiting with rotor turning, which would then fly the Observer direct to the building site. He would jump out, run across the street and up to the Tower lift. So the end part of the Race was decided!

Yeah Mark, you are right. I am biased as all get out on this subject. I'll always support a strong military. Anyway, my comments:

The threat. There are two factors I would say are important to consider. Firstly is the lead time required to build up military forces. If you wait until you have an clearly identifiable threat, then you'll be playing catch up. It takes quite a time from when you order a ship or an aircraft until they are delivered and ready as a combat system. You have to plan to fight tomorrow's war today. The second factor is to remember the best weapon system is the one that doesn't have to be used, that deters an potential adversary from committing a hostile act. The military is an insurance policy: you hope you'll never need it, but if you do you want full coverage.

The submarines? Garbage - total garbage. Submarines are some of the best defensive and offensive weapon systems available to a maritime nation - and Australia is a major maritime nation. A major portion of our military has one objective: keeping the sea lines of communication open. That's ships - cargo ships, bulk carriers, tankers, etc. Sub marines are essential to Australia and they represent great value for money. Let's consider a potential adversary maritime force. Maybe they are going after shipping. Maybe they want to stage a blockade. Perhaps they have an invasion force. The simple fact that we have submarines affects how the adversary conducts their operations. Unless they can say for certain that we do not have any submarines operating in that area, they have to expend force in countering the submarine threat. We may have nothing there... but the simple possibility of them being there provides a threat that must be countered. They'll have to stand an anti-submarine watch, have aircraft flying anti-submarine patrols, etc. They have to devote valuable and limited resources against something that may not even be there. That's value. Likewise, they can help protect our own ships against an enemy submarine or surface ship. They can sneak into areas and conduct intel gathering missions, normally providing extremely valuable information.

The author of that blog seems to have forgotten about the vital role played by submarines on all sides during WWII. Remember the sinking of KUTTABUL? Three Japanese two-man minisubs caused havoc on the Australian east coast. Three cheap subs with six people, and just how much resources were expended in protecting ourselves against them, and trying to locate them? Resources which could have been deployed elsewhere?

Think about it: which sea-faring nations operate submarines?

Argentina

Brazil

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Egypt

UK

France

Italy

Spain

Germany

Sweden

Norway

Greece

South Korea

North Korea

Iran

India

Indonesia

Japan

Malaysia

Pakistan

Russia

South Africa

Singapore

Taiwan

etc

etc

No, Australia will always need a capable submarine fleet.

Oh - and people should ask themselves - why do you insist on this continual vendetta against me? Is it because I refuse to be intimidated by those I disagree with? Is it because someone has a personal grudge against me? Is it because people are afraid of what I might say?

Hmmm.

Others didn't and don't have photos and they will not be removed, but Magda was - how do you know she isn't an observant conservative Moslem and what about Dunne who was allowed {I assume} to not show his face - sadly one of the best posters on this Forum EVER and no longer here - likely out of disgust with the situation which IMO is designed to destroy the conspiracy section - not keep it in 'order'. Others did and do not have the links to their bios.

Pardon my anger, but are you deaf Peter? Are you ignoring all my posts? Do you read them? Magda was asked to contact John if she had a reason for not showing an image which Jack White demanded all of us show. She chose not to do so. It was good enough for the "anti-conspiracy" camp; are you saying the other side should have different rules?

Speak to John and Andy about Duane. I agree with their actions. And Duane showed an image which fully complied with Forum rules and was never - let me say that again - NEVER - called into question. Just another one of your "inaccuracies".

Jack White did not break it - it broke when the webpage it was linked to changed their webpage. John Simkin had originally made the link for Jack, as Jack didn't know how. Evan, showing bias and total lack of empathy for someone he has repeatedly shown nothing but antagonism to in posts and actions gave Jack not one jot of leeway and refused to do the re-link himself or ask John or someone else. Jack is a longterm and well-known researcher who was invited here - some way to treat a guest - and some wonder why so many invited here no longer post?! And I could go on and will....

Just how many times do you need to be shown that you are wrong? How many times do you need to be shown? We could not correct the link unless Jack provided his private password to us. He was given several days to correct the problem. . This was stated REPEATEDLY. Your accusation simply shows you have not even done me the simple courtesy of reading my replies.

How do we know that other's photos are actually themselves? Only a few do we have independant means to verify, anyway.

I discussed this with Magda. I am happy to submit to John Simkin a Statuary Declaration with my passport details / scan. I have nothing to hide. I am happy for a third party to check my avatar with my current appearance. Are you Peter? It would seem your avatar shows a much younger Peter, but that doesn't worry me. Still, if you are so worried about this, then lets get all members to provide certified scan of their passports. I will do it. Let me say this again: I WILL DO IT. Are you happy to make it known that you want all members to do this Peter? Are you prepared to demand it as a requirement?

OR DO YOU JUST WANT IT TO APPLY TO PEOPLE YOU HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST?

The fact that the number of pro-conspiracy posters FAR outnumber those who might be called skeptical of conpsiracy have been disaplined, had their posts made invisible, been warned, moderated and put on the obscene permanent moderation speaks volumes to the bias being shown and an agenda being followed IMO - whether by design or just due to personal bias and blindnesses is less imporatant than that it is happening.

If you think this is correct, then I would ask EVERYONE to read posts made by those people. Once again, I should remind EVERYONE that moderators do NOT have the power to ban people or place them on moderation. That can only be done by the admins.

Since the summer coup and carnage that let to the DPF, this Forum has IMO not been the same and a lesser force - except to the anti-conpiracy crowd who aided in and helped orchestrate this - and applaud and revel in it. Planned demo IMO disguised as modertate and unbiased moderation and posts.

No one should be allowed to moderate a thread they themselves are actively posting upon; more so in an antagonistic way to the thread starter and not when they started the thread themselves. This should be self-evident, but has happened many times - and to my knowledge ONLY by Burton.

The "revolt" has shown that people who think that they should be above the law have left. I disagree, but they still have accounts and can post - if they abide by Forum rules. I don't make the rules, Peter. If people cannot debase themselves to such a level as to conform to rules which apply to the rest of us - the great unwashed - then I for one am not sure I really want to hear what they have to say.

What about the Deep Bull forum, Peter? Not much in the way of dissent, is there? No-one is permitted to say anything against the crowd, are they? All we see there are a number of people who agree with themselves.

More soon.

Look forward to it. Just a reminder - you have my full permission to post on this Forum the PMs I have sent to you.

There are many problems with the way moderation is done and I hope to expand on each of them. First there is a structural problem that we have apparently lost two and yet no replacements have been made. Gary Loughran has not been on this Forum since 1/26/09 and was not posting much before then. I've never been aware of his inclusion in moderator's decision (though he may have been very silently) but is obviously not now. Second, John Geharty has not been seen on this Forum since 11/23/08. He is perhaps the most sympathetic to those who have been removed and who find fault with some aspects of the Forum's governance IMO. I believe he is too busy with university, but whatever, he is also not around participating in moderation activities and we are led to believe all is OK.

This is a matter to be raised with John Simkin and Andy Walker.

Next, one person, Even Burton has apparently self-appointed himself as grand poohbah of the moderators, initiating what seems like more than 80% of all actions and then only calling on the remaining few others to rubberstamp his decisions and actions. Why is it that Burton was front and center in all the controvery over Len's identity over closing and changing threads he is actively participating in and antagonistic to the theses of? Why is he the one who has innitiated by far more of the warnings and exectution of moderation and permanent moderation? More so when he obviously has an anti-conspiracy stance on the political conspiracy section and defends the few other anti-conspiracists both in their posts and when others call for their moderation.

Your opinion. Others disagree with you.

Also, why do you continually raise the matter of Len's identity when it has been settled?

DO YOU DISPUTE THAT LEN COLBY IS USING HIS CORRECT NAME ON THIS FORUM?

A name which is used off-forum is no concern of this forum. If you persist in this line, I will recommend to John and Andy that no action be taken against any member that who discusses any identity that YOU use on other forums. How they deal with that recommendation is their concern.

Secondly, my stance on matters has nothing to do with how I carry out the responsibilities I have been given. I am required to apply the rules equally. If I do not apply them equally, then complaint should be made to John or Andy.

Len has - for the most part - addressed the CONTENT of posts made. Every now and again he deviates and makes comments against a poster. These are dealt with on an individual basis like anyone else. Sometimes discussions get heated and leeway is given to people. If things get too heated, the leeway is removed and people are warned. If you think the rules are not being applied fairly, then complaint should be made to John or Andy.

I don't find things above board nor even handed. I have listed some of the bias and wrong-calls and will document more. It would be best if others pipe-in here too. I have long called for Evan Burton to recuse himself from all further  moderation activities, and the Forum get at least three new neutral moderators - none being overly active than the others. Those of us who are at the forefront of 911 Truth and other conspiracies not to the pleasure of the powers that be are well aware we are being closely watched by Burton for any move that can get us on moderation, chastised or IMO, his wish, removed or so disgusted and harrassed, as to leave.

If you have complaint, then take it to John or Andy. I am generally happy with how I have conducted myself.

(End of Part 1. Part 2 to follow)

John,

Could you summarise - and probably simplify - why should this happen? For someone who doesn't know any real detail about the whole matter?

Try it this way: I'm the person who has the power to order a new investigation (or whatever), and it's me you have to convince. The problem is I know only the basic details of the assassination... and I'm a busy man who really doesn't care all that much. Treat it as an executive summary of why there is reason to do this. Convince me.

If you feel it's pointless to try and summarise the evidence without losing the reason for it being significant, or simply do not have the time to detail what needs to be said, I will understand. It's that I don't know the details and - although normally a skeptic - am quite open to being convinced why there should be a new investigation.

I'd like to stress something, too: I asked something in a similar vein some time ago and the thread just developed into an argument between various JFK people. I want to avoid this again. I'd ask that John Dolva, and only John Dolva (or his nominated representative) answer my request. If you disagree with something that he has says in any summary, then PM me - please do NOT post your objection to the thread.

Thanks.

Tom,

I'm not clear on what the problems are. Could you summarise them for me?

1. American Airlines says THERE WERE NO SEATBACK PHONES ON FLIGHT 77.

As Len has pointed out, this is incorrect. They were in the process of removing them, but the aircraft documentations shows that they were neither removed nor deactivated on 9-11.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...moking-gun.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...39/c3801015.htm

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=35569

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...one-update.html

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1033-831093.html

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=273...p;postcount=378

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=278...p;postcount=416

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Airfones

2. Cellphone calls from Flight 77 were impossible.

That's not correct. I've used them myself a number of times. Also:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=393...mp;postcount=38

http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/ar/wir..._final_contact/

http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

Peter,

I don't know why you insist on distorting the facts when they are available for all to see. It hurts your credibility doing things like that.

So, let's check this out:

... Jack was put on moderation because the link in his bio link was broken. The fact that it was broken was unknown to him. It was a link to a university in Texas and their web designer had obviously changed something and the link got broken. Jack, not unreasonably, said that he was invited to the forum by JS and that it was JS who had uploaded the link and photo and that if there was something wrong with the link then admin will have to fix it as he didn't know how. Some people gave advice but many, the usual suspects, just derided Jack. Evan was adamant that 'rules are rules' and that Jack was on moderation until his link was fixed. No negotiation. End of story. Obviously to take the increasing heat off Len and his identity. Jack had tried to contact JS many times about this apparently but there was no response ( a big problem and I believe Jack as many people including also tried to contact JS during this time and NO ONE that I know of got any response) Some people were defensive of Jack some were accusing the moderators (by this time Annti and another moderator where called in by Evan to tame the natives who were rebelling en mass but still no sign of JS) of being over the top and picking on Jack.

As you know, we are all required to have a link to our bios on the bottom of our posts. John told everyone in an e-mail that this was a requirement that would be enforced. The bio link on Jack's posts was not working and I reminded him three times, via PM and over a few days, that he needed to fix it. When no action was taken, Jack was publicly reminded of the requirement.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151027

He stated that he "did not read PMs".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151039

Okay, so Jack was reminded about the requirement. He was also told that if the link was broken, we could not fix it - he had to do that.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151435

Jack refused to do it. Therefore - after several warnings over several days - he was placed on moderation. As soon as Jack complied with the requirement, he was taken off moderation. Now, this was not the first time Jack was asked to update the link, and was told how to do it. Even then, he insisted he should be a special case:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8286

When Marga went to Jack's defense she was told that her photo was unsuitable and that she had xx days to get a new one. Again she said that JS had uploaded her photo and that if there was something wrong with it he would have said something and he didn't.

Once again, Magda was given several opportunities to have her photo comply with forum rules - rules which Jack White insisted be enforced.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13072

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=97635

I also reminded her that if there was a reason she should be exempted, then she should contact John. To my knowledge, she did not do so. She chose not to abide by the rules, and so is under moderation.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151489

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151509

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=165645

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13362

Oh - Peter - I give you permission to post my PM to you.

Len's other identity was brought to the forum by Jack White who found it in the 'peer reviewed' Journal of 911 Debunking. There was then much debate about 'who is Len?' 'Colby or Brazil?' aliases, forum rules, peer review, journals, disinfo, disinfo fronts, James Randi, etc in the middle of all this Jack was put on moderation because the link in his bio link was broken. The fact that it was broken was unknown to him. It was a link to a university in Texas and their web designer had obviously changed something and the link got broken. Jack, not unreasonably, said that he was invited to the forum by JS and that it was JS who had uploaded the link and photo and that if there was something wrong with the link then admin will have to fix it as he didn't know how. Some people gave advice but many, the usual suspects, just derided Jack. Evan was adamant that 'rules are rules' and that Jack was on moderation until his link was fixed. No negotiation. End of story. Obviously to take the increasing heat off Len and his identity. Jack had tried to contact JS many times about this apparently but there was no response ( a big problem and I believe Jack as many people including also tried to contact JS during this time and NO ONE that I know of got any response) Some people were defensive of Jack some were accusing the moderators (by this time Annti and another moderator where called in by Evan to tame the natives who were rebelling en mass but still no sign of JS) of being over the top and picking on Jack. When Marga went to Jack's defense she was told that her photo was unsuitable and that she had xx days to get a new one. Again she said that JS had uploaded her photo and that if there was something wrong with it he would have said something and he didn't.

Rules are rules, Mr. immoderator [lately sending me nasty/challenging PMs I'll shortly post!]. JS himself uploaded Magda's photo YOU found 'out of bounds'; Jack [Who was invited here by JS and clearly not very computer literate] didn't break his bio link and others here have photos and bio's missing (and not posted by JS) to which you've done nothing - until I point it out...... It is long-past time for you to recuse yourself as moderator IMO, due to your bias and overly energetic application of rules only to some and unfairly.

I again call for you to voluntarily step down, or I may (in my sleep) start a thread, so calling for.......with gory documentation and poll.

And why is John Geraghty still listed as a moderator? He hasn't logged-on it seems in about a year and a half? How come Mr. Burton does most of the actions of the moderators - only asking them to sometimes go along to get along? Gary L if a moderator is the most [or completely] silent, next to the now departed JG. What is going on here?

Such untruths - as usual - from Peter and the gang.

I'll let Peter quack about, and once he he has finished, I'll address his claims.

Len's other identity was brought to the forum by Jack White who found it in the 'peer reviewed' Journal of 911 Debunking. There was then much debate about 'who is Len?' 'Colby or Brazil?' aliases, forum rules, peer review, journals, disinfo, disinfo fronts, James Randi, etc in the middle of all this Jack was put on moderation because the link in his bio link was broken. The fact that it was broken was unknown to him. It was a link to a university in Texas and their web designer had obviously changed something and the link got broken. Jack, not unreasonably, said that he was invited to the forum by JS and that it was JS who had uploaded the link and photo and that if there was something wrong with the link then admin will have to fix it as he didn't know how. Some people gave advice but many, the usual suspects, just derided Jack. Evan was adamant that 'rules are rules' and that Jack was on moderation until his link was fixed. No negotiation. End of story. Obviously to take the increasing heat off Len and his identity. Jack had tried to contact JS many times about this apparently but there was no response ( a big problem and I believe Jack as many people including also tried to contact JS during this time and NO ONE that I know of got any response) Some people were defensive of Jack some were accusing the moderators (by this time Annti and another moderator where called in by Evan to tame the natives who were rebelling en mass but still no sign of JS) of being over the top and picking on Jack. When Marga went to Jack's defense she was told that her photo was unsuitable and that she had xx days to get a new one. Again she said that JS had uploaded her photo and that if there was something wrong with it he would have said something and he didn't.

Rules are rules, Mr. immoderator [lately sending me nasty/challenging PMs I'll shortly post!]. JS himself uploaded Magda's photo YOU found 'out of bounds'; Jack [Who was invited here by JS and clearly not very computer literate] didn't break his bio link and others here have photos and bio's missing (and not posted by JS) to which you've done nothing - until I point it out...... It is long-past time for you to recuse yourself as moderator IMO, due to your bias and overly energetic application of rules only to some and unfairly.

I again call for you to voluntarily step down, or I may (in my sleep) start a thread, so calling for.......with gory documentation and poll.

And why is John Geraghty still listed as a moderator? He hasn't logged-on it seems in about a year and a half? How come Mr. Burton does most of the actions of the moderators - only asking them to sometimes go along to get along? Gary L if a moderator is the most [or completely] silent, next to the now departed JG. What is going on here?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry166677  has no photo after 147 posts. You visited his profile ten days ago, yet Magda was booted-out [iMO because on the progressive hit list] for a photo you didn't like. I've long complained of several other dark, small, side-shot photos of the various Borg. Some are still tolerated, a few were asked to change only after I pointed-out. 

Fingernail and bedsheet taughtness inspection tomorrow at 2300 hours.....

Oh such a short memory Peter. Do you not forget Magda was given two weeks to change her avatar - and she refused to do so? And she was asked to change her avatar to one which Jack White said we should all have? And that I advised her to contact John or Andy if she had a reason not to show her photo?

Such a selective memory, Peter. No wonder your recollection is so skewed - and so wrong.