jump to navigation

Flightline Friday November 13, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, awesomeness, Flightline Friday, foolishness, fun, history, non squitur, silliness, technology.
comments closed

I’ve been feeling the Flightline Fridays have been a bit repetitive for a while, but I really don’t have much queued up for today other than yet another video on the F-20 (I never get tired of those) and some really cool pics of the Tomcat. I’m really hoping to do a post next week on British post-war naval aviation.  All kinds of interesting things to talk about there if I can find the time.  The Brits did quite a bit with not very much money, even though Labor wrecked it all in 1966.

Anyway, I really like this video on the F-20 because it’s got some awesome cockpit shots.  I’ve related in the past that I have long been fascinated by cockpit design.  How to convey vital information – life and death information – in the clearest, most easily understandable way possible is a great technical challenge. I really like cockpits from the late 60s-early 80s when electronic displays were first being introduced and pilot situation awareness was taken as the highest priority.  I think we’ve gone too far now, using electronics just because “we” can, actually reducing the effectiveness of the instrumentation.

I think the F-20 had one of the best combinations of traditional analog gauges and electronic displays.  A HUD coupled with a digitally-presented radar display and an electronic armament panel really amps up effectiveness, and is an enormous leap ahead of having to look down to the bottom of the instrument panel, in combat, to flip switches and rotate dials as had to be done on the F-4 Phantom. But I’m not sure that an electronic artificial horizon and heading indicator is any better than an analog one, and I think it’s a lot easier to read a row of vertical tape, seeing in a millisecond-glance that all are in the green, rather than trying to decipher multiple numeric readouts on an LCD screen.

Anyway, really cool footage (to me, heh) from 2:30 – 5:10 of the F-20 cockpit, mostly from the simulator but that’s just fine:

You can even see spikes on the threat warning indicator.

Now some pics I found on the F-14 I thought worth sharing. Most all of these pics are of the VF-31 Tomcatters, my favorite Navy squadron because I love the Felix the Cat graphic:

untitled (1)




A US Navy (USN) F-14D Tomcat standard fleet fighter aircraft (Aircraft number 100), Fighter Squadron 31 (VF-31, ÒTomcattersÓ), makes a near-supersonic low-level fly-by above the USN Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier, USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71), while the USS ROOSEVELT is participating in a Joint Task Force Exercise (JTFEX) with the USN Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier, USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN 69) in the Atlantic Ocean (AOC).

You can just make out the Battle ‘E’ in Felix’s bomb, awarded for most proficient squadron during the course of a year, in this case 2005, I believe.


Now you can really see the Battle ‘E.’ Only the “CAG” bird – the squadron commander’s aircraft- receives bring paint markings in the Navy anymore. The rest get very subdued paint schemes for reduced visibility.



The AIM-54/F-14 combination provided a unique capability until the F-22 entered the scene.  The AIM-54 had a nominal range in excess of 100 miles, though it was usually only used at about half that range.  The F-22 with AIM-120D entering service has similar performance.

Only the Tomcat carried the nearly 1-ton AIM-54, a truly huge air-to-air missile:

Aircraft Nose Art From WWII

Great stuff

Painted on the drop tanks of VF-31 aircraft as they completed the final Tomcat cruise.  They let their feelings be known regarding their replacement aircraft:


Francis BFF Evo Morales drops mask, comes out hard for full-on global communism…… November 13, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, paganism, Papa, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
comments closed

…..implemented, naturally, as the means to combat “climate change.”  Because we all know what wonderful stewards of the environment communists are.  They never have a Chernobyl, Norilsk, or skies so blackened with pollution Chinese have to bicycle to work in full-up respirators and a thousand other obscenities.  The “Bolivian’s” – which means Morales’ – ten point plan to implement the glorious worldwide worker’s paradise and crush the robber baron capitalists and their running dog lackeys combat climate change:

The Bolivians have a ten-point plan:

1. Adoption of a new model of civilization in the world without consumerism, war-mongering, and mercantilism, a world without capitalism; build and consolidate a world order of Living Well that defends and promotes the integral rights of our peoples, undertaking the path of harmony with nature and respect for life. [Ah yes, communist “living well.”  Ever looked up photos of post-Chernobyl mutations?  That’s communist living well for you]

2. Construction of a climate system based on responsibility to Mother Earth, the culture of life and the full realization of humanity in their holistic development, humanizing the economy, surpassing the simplistic approach to decarbonization of the economy……. [Ah, yes, communist “goodness.” Why is it Evo and his cronies have become fantastically wealthy in office, then?  Because all this “goodness” is for the little people, while the self-anointed elites live like Rockefellers]

5. Elimination of patents on technologies and recognition of the human right to science and technology of life.

7. Establishment of the International Court of Justice Climate and Mother Earth to enable countries to fulfill their international commitments to climate change in a context of respect for the rights of peoples and of Mother Earth. [And to punish those recalcitrants who don’t, right?  Yesterday’s post is apropos]

8. Allocate the resources of the military machinery of the imperial powers and the war-mongers to finance the activities of the peoples against climate change. [In other words, give Evo money]

9. Eradication of commodification of nature and carbon markets promoting business climate millionaires, which do not solve the problem of the climate crisis[Al Gore, your ears are burning!]

10. Decolonize natural resources environmental colonial biased views that see the peoples of the South as forest rangers of Northern countries and communities as enemies of nature.

I don’t have a whole lot to add, other than:


Laudato Si and Evo’s Indo-communism…….like peas and carrots, they are.

Dominican theologian: Aquinas places sodomite “love” above marital love! November 13, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, damnable blasphemy, different religion, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
comments closed

They’re really coming out of the woodwork now. Just as Obama’s administration has resulted in every manner of wild progressive coming out of the woodwork, and the doubling and tripling down of their radical demands, Pope Francis’ pontificate has surely energized the radical heretics who claim membership in the Church, and encouraged them to reveal their utterly fantastic (and false) beliefs.  BTW, this author sets my gaydar off more than a fleet of Tu-160s coming over the North Pole sets off the North Warning System:

A Dominican friar, Fr. Adriano Oliva, has celebrated the 800th anniversary of his religious order with a book about “the Church, the divorced and remarried, and homosexual couples.”

Amours (“Loves”) is a study of St Thomas Aquinas’ definition of love and aims to show that the “Angelic Doctor” recognized the “natural” character of homosexuality. In the wake of the Synod on the family, Oliva pleads for new ways of welcoming divorced and remarried and homosexual couples into the Church and of recognizing their unions in civil law…..

…….“The highest of friendships: this is how St Thomas Aquinas calls the unique, faithful and gratuitous love between two spouses who give themselves to each other in consecrated union, as a sacramental sign of the love of Christ for the Church, His spouse. Should couples who are divorced and remarried, who live out their union in a responsible manner, be banned from this friendship? Could it be that homosexual persons, who live as a couple with responsibility, be banned?” reads the text accompanying the book on the Cerf’s web-shop. [There are so many false assumptions and leaps of illogic in these few sentences it would take pages to fully unpack them.  The entire argument is built upon an edifice of falsehood]

It goes on: “Does a theological assessment of the ‘naturality’ of the homosexual inclination, which St Thomas recognizes, not open the doors to new ways of welcoming same-sex couples within the Church? The anthropology of ‘naturality’ then demands that civil rights be accorded to such couples in national legislations.”…….[Too bad Aquinas several times in the Summa refers to this vice as “unnatural” and akin to bestiality]

…….From this Oliva deduces the thesis according to which “St Thomas places the principle of pleasure in sexual unions between persons of the masculine sex as coming from the soul and not from the body, where he had placed venereal pleasure, on the other hand.” He then proceeds to declare: “St Thomas considers homosexuality as an inclination that is rooted in its most intimate part, the soul, from where affections and love are expressed.” [And thus superior to male-female relations within the confines of marriage, which can be argued to come from lower faculties than the soul]

Contrary to what this self-serving pedant claims, here is what Aquinas really thought about sodomy and such unnatural lusts. BTW, his most thorough analysis of them compares them directly to bestiality, something so unnatural and beneath human dignity as to be unmentionable if fallen men were not capable of infinite evil:

Commenting upon Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (1:26-27), Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, explains why the sin of homosexuality is so grave:

“Given the sin of impiety through which they [the Romans] sinned against the divine nature [by idolatry], the punishment that led them to sin against their own nature followed…. I say, therefore, that since they changed into lies [by idolatry] the truth about God, He brought them to ignominious passions, that is, to sins against nature; not that God led them to evil, but only that he abandoned them to evil….

“If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature….

“Man can sin against nature in two ways. First, when he sins against his specific rational nature, acting contrary to reason. In this sense, we can say that every sin is a sin against man’s nature, because it is against man’s right reason….

“Secondly, man sins against nature when he goes against his generic nature, that is to say, his animal nature. Now, it is evident that, in accord with natural order, the union of the sexes among animals is ordered towards conception. From this it follows that every sexual intercourse that cannot lead to conception is opposed to man’s animal nature.9

We see in this case exactly how modernists work.  Exceedingly shoddy, self-serving “scholarship” completely twists, or takes radically out of context, stern condemnations of grave sins and by feats of intellectual sleight of hand turns them around to say the opposite of their true meaning. Even more, numerous modernists – like Cardinal Kasper – have been caught making up quotes from Saints out of whole cloth, or radically altering their statements to say something the exact opposite of what they really said: just like in the Synod’s final report, the notorious paragraphs 84-86 misquoted Familiaris Consortio by leaving out <cough> Saint John Paul  II’s statement that granting Communion to the divorced and remarried was impossible.

As for the sad character who wrote this:


Funny how he only wears his habit when he wants to appear Catholic.  Most interviews show him in suit and tie.

Which is all of a piece.  A modernist simulates Catholicism when he wants to influence the Church, but when he presents himself to the world, he shucks the trappings of Catholicism.

Pope Francis threatening the TLM? Some of his strongest words yet against Tradition November 13, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

As Hilary White the very handsome but not quite so lovely as Hilary White Patrick Archbold asks, is this the big reveal, where the (her term) villain of our story reveals his nefarious plans for all the world to see?  Not sure, but Pope Francis’ remarks against the traditional practice of the Faith – aka Catholicism – made on Nov. 10 were some of his strongest, yet:

“Before the problems of the church it is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism, in the restoration of obsolete conduct and forms that no longer have the capacity of being significant culturally,” the pontiff said at one point during his remarks. [So is that why the FIs were thriving, when almost every other “conciliar” religious order is dead or in its death throes?]

“Christian doctrine is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, interrogatives – but is alive, knows being unsettled, enlivened,” said the pope. “It has a face that is not rigid, it has a body that moves and grows, it has a soft flesh: it is called Jesus Christ.” [I’m sorry, but this is a very modernist-leaning understanding of the Faith. It is an understanding many great Saints and Fathers would largely reject]

“The reform of the church then, and the church is semper reformanda… does not end in the umpteenth plan to change structures,” he continued. “It means instead grafting yourself to and rooting yourself in Christ, leaving yourself to be guided by the Spirit – so that all will be possible with genius and creativity.” [perpetual revolution in practice doctrine, then?  The modernist program in full flower]

Patrick Arcbold (Ugh group blogs, so confusing) adds:

The Pope has revealed himself and is telling us what he is going to do. It is impossible not to see him for who he is and what he intends to do. Nobody has the luxury of feigning surprise at what comes next. The Pope is the hackneyed director and writer of his own story and he has given it all away.

In the movies, the mechanism of the “big reveal” serves two purposes. It serves the obvious purpose ofletting the audience clearly know which side this key character is on. It also serves to let the story’s protagonist know that his cause is futile. He cannot possibly win.

Practically speaking, when the more “fundamentalist” sects are some of the only Christian churches still growing in the Church and around the world, how can the Pope possibly make this claim, when liberalism can be categorically shown to be the death of Christianity?  Furthermore, how does he square such belief for the Catholic Church with his fawning relationship with fundamentalist evangelicals like Kenneth Copeland?  Does he believe protestantism is fundamentally – forgive the term – liberal and prone towards doctrinal re-writing and evolution?  If so, he’s correct, but it still seems a very odd juxtaposition, at least philosophically, knowing how uber-conservative some of his evangelical BFFs are.

As to Tradition, and the star around which it orbits, the TLM, it’s difficult not to see in the above at most a begrudging willingness to let it continue, for now.  But long term, I think it plain the Pope feels it a total dead end, and something that will have to go away sooner or later.

Reader MFG asks how to square these statements with the Pope’s olive branch to the SSPX.  I don’t know that they have to square, I think Pope Francis is very impulsive but generally acts more for political than doctrinal reasons. He may see an advantage in terms of internal Church politics to granting (as if by divine decree, since no mechanism whatsoever was established for this) faculties to SSPX priests for the upcoming “Year of Mercy.”  One thing is certain, this Pope feels no compulsion whatsoever to intellectual consistency.  He’s all over the map.

What say youse guys?