kgambit

Ecstasy or MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine)

I think you're referring to a massive huge deposit of industrial quality diamonds and not the gemstone quality stones. Synthetic industrial diamonds are fairly commonplace and they are actually cheaper to produce than mining the equivalent industrial quality stones. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/18/is-the-diamond-market-about-to-collapse-over-huge-russian-find/

Is this accurate? If I'm reading this correctly 65 % of there exports are Petroleum based, I wonder where they are going to or rather how much goes to the EU which means Russia cannot afford to declare there own sanctions on the EU by not selling them Petroleum? Yes. http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=RS The majority of it goes to Europe. Nearly 80% give or take depending on the sector (oil, gas, refined etc.) http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=RS Asia is the second biggest recipient at 12 to 18%.

To steal (and paraphrase) a line from Christopher Walken: Less talkie talkie, more pictures

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme. Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes. You are not seriously suggesting that if Syrian war had ended in 3 months. like Libya, ISIS would still be existence in its same form? ISIS gained in strength and structure as more and more foreign fighters came to Syria with there own brand of Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS didn't exist in Syria until at least a year into the conflict, if you disagree with me post some links to prove your point? Technically you're right since the name change to ISIS wasn't announced until April 2013 but functionally you're wrong. The expansion of ISI (the precursor to ISIS) occurred as early as December 2011 when it established the Nusra front in Syria (less than a year after the civil war started). Non-Syrian jihadists began joining ISI/ISIS almost immediately. The details: According to various sources, the Syrian civil war either started on 20 March 2011 in Daraa, after security forces opened fire on the protesting crowd or April 25, when the Syrian Army initiated wide scale attacks in multiple towns resulting in 1000+ deaths. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered northern Iraq, and in October, 2002, he formally joined Al Qaeda to create Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (Al Qaeda in Iraq – AQI). On June 7, 2006, Zarqawi was killed by an American airstrike. He was replaced by Abu Ayub al-Masri, an Egyptian. A few months later, in October 2006, al-Masri united several groups, most notably al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq, and Jund al-Sahhaba [soldiers of the Prophet’s Companions] and on October 13, declared the formation of Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islamiyya (Islamic State of Iraq—ISI). On Oct. 15, 2006 he named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi its leader. ISI took Baquba, Iraq, as its capital and swore allegiance to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the group’s emir. Al-Nusra front (also the Nusra front or Jabhat al Nusra) was formed in Syria in December 2011 when emir Baghadi sent operative Abu Muhammad al-Julian to Syria. The group officially announced its creation on 23 January 2012. That's clearly less than a year after the Civil war started but not by a lot. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi played a key role in establishing Jabhat al-Nusra. But he considered Abu Mohammed al-Golani, Nusra’s leader, to be his subordinate with a duty to obey him. So Baghdadi announced the dissolution of Jabhat al-Nusra and the integration of its members into ISI, with the new organization being called the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham. Golani refused the order, but ISIS appeared on the scene with strength anyway. ISIS quickly announced its areas of operations publicly and took control of wide areas without facing much resistance, benefitting from the Jabhat al-Nusra fighters who defected to ISIS. Some estimates suggest that about 65% of Jabhat al-Nusra elements quickly declared their allegiance to ISIS. Most of those were non-Syrian jihadists. In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced AQI’s operations in Syria and the group’s name change to ISIS; he reiterated the claim that AQI/ISI created the Al Nusra Front in Syria. Al-Baghdadi further stated that the two groups were on the verge of merging. Al-Julani agreed that AQI/ISI had aided al-Nusra from the beginning, but rejected the merger and renewed his pledge of allegiance to Al Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri disputed this claim as well and officially annulled the merger, dictating that ISIS should limit its operations to Iraq. On June 29, 2014, ISIS again changed its name to simply the “Islamic State" or IS. Loyalty to al-Qaeda may be the common denominator between ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. ISIS has been under al-Qaeda’s banner since ISI was founded and inspired by the approach of Zarqawi, and from the jihadist doctrine stipulating “the loyalty of the branch is from the loyalty of the main [organization].” Therefore, ISIS’s loyalty is to al-Qaeda as long as [iSIS’s] emir Baghdadi “didn’t invalidate the allegiance” in an open manner. It should be noted that Baghdadi had refused to implement the decision of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri to dissolve ISIS while maintaining Jabhat al-Nusra and ISI intact. http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/1 http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/493 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html#ixzz39w0GZag4 PS: I'll take my shots at Obama in another post.

Isn't everyone unsure of designations done purely via radar though*? Assuming they actually have video in real time from the Rostov radar station then I'd presume they would have labelled it as an Su-25 because they'd expect it to be one on a ground attack mission rather than a Su-27 or MiG-29. And there are alternative sources saying Su-27s were around. So far as I am aware while transponders give out that an aircraft is military they do not share their type, that has to be assigned. Otherwise I'd find it difficult to credit that the Russians would pick exactly the wrong type of plane to finger when they could as easily have said Su-27 or MiG-29, it's not like they aren't familiar with the aircraft's specifications. *Would have thought it would be easy to find out, but I obviously can't find the right terms to search for. Don't sweat the terminology, I know what you mean. But that's partly my point - why would the Russians single out and identify a specific airframe as the culprit if there were better (i.e. more capable) platforms? Either they have additional information they aren't sharing (so we now have a quid pro quo on US Satellite intelligence data) or they simply pulled a convenient plane type out of their butt. Further, if the id is solely based on radar, how are the Russians sure what the plane was armed with? Is it simply an assumption or do they have other hard data. Remember that the Su-25 is a ground support aircraft not a high altitude interceptor. Air to air missiles aren't uncommon but given that the separatists don't have air assets, why wouldn't the Ukrainians AF trade off some AAMs for ground attack munitions? Given that there isn't something beyond simple radar, I wonder how the Russians (assuming those are the sources you refer to) can be any more positive about the identification of Su-27s in the area than they were about the Su-25s? So let me ask: Who are these alternate sources (note: plural) and what are they basing the Su-27 aircraft identification on? Is it the Russian MoD? Ukrainians? Links please? The only source that I can find for the Su-27 claims appears to be comments attributable to someone identified as Iranian defense expert Babak Taghvaee in private communication with the writer David Cenciotti at theaviationist.com Every other claim that I found links back to this one source. I can find no independent confirmation of his claims by any news source whatsoever. Supposedly Taghvaee made comments about the Su-27 involvement on the ACIG forums (Air Combat Information Group) but the links to that site provided by Cenciotti are non-functioning and a google search which found an alternate page for ACIG currently shows the site is down. There are some obvious discrepancies in Taghvaee's report. Six aircraft forward deployed with six aircraft in the air simultaneously at all times? Color me skeptical. Maybe its just awkward phrasing on Taghvaee's part but with six available Su27s, it would more likely that their CAP patrols would be staggered in 3 shifts of 2 to provide continuous coverage and allow downtime for the pilots. But hey that's just me. So is that the entire basis of the support for the Su27 claims? If not, then provide some independent links. What's funny about the Russian Ministry of Defense presentation was this image: Yes I realize it's for illustration purposes only but what's amusing is that Su-25 image more closely resembles the now retired USAF EF-111 Raven. (Or that the passenger has four engines as opposed to the twin engine the 777) C'mon guys you aren't even trying. (seriously are those guys just drunk or what?)

A slight increase over 7km service ceiling, maybe. But reaching 10km implies that the Su-25 is exceeding that by nearly 50%. That's a major stretch imo; not impossible, but very highly unlikely. (Yes, I do realize that the service ceiling isn't a hard and fast limit.) That 10km ceiling might be achievable (although I'm doubtful) for the latest Russian models with the Soyuz/Gavrilov R-195 engines but certainly not for the Ukrainian Su-25M1 variant which still have the older (slightly weaker) R-95 engines. The R-195 engines are rated at 44.18kN (9931 lbs thrust) while the R-95s are rated at 40.21 kN (9,039 lbs thrust) . That is only10% more thrust so I'm a bit skeptical of a 50% gain in service ceiling without weight reduction occurring somewhere. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%202248.html But back to the Ukrainian M1 variants. Nothing have I have read indicates that any weight reduction has occurred with the Ukrainian models and they are still using the R-95 engines. So you have the same thrust generated by the same engines with some added equipment and some structural reinforcing of the M1 variants. That indicates more weight and a lower thrust to weight ratio; i.e. less lift. And the newer engine Su-25UTG Naval variants have only been deployed to the Russia (Naval Aviation) : 279th KIAP Severomorsk Edit: Another point to keep in mind is that when an airplane climbs it bleeds airspeed for altitude. So even if a Su-25 is capable of reaching that 10km critical altitude it is going to be trading off air-speed while it does. That means that the speed differential is magnified. In short, the physics says the Su-25 flying from behind can't catch a Boeing 777 and climb to altitude at the same time. Good points. The service ceiling for the Su-25 of 7km is for a totally unarmed plane. Adding in 200 rounds of 30mm cannon shells, a pair of Rh-60 AAMs and a full fuel load all adds weight and lowers that service ceiling. A fully armed Su-25 has a 5km service ceiling. The plane was simply not designed to function as a high speed interceptor, and trying to cast it in that role is silly. Looks like Oby is getting ready to jump in ....... lol

Healthy? What means this word .... as a Texas Ranger fan it is unfamiliar to me. Here's the litany - I can't bear to even copy and paste the list .... http://grantland.com/the-triangle/texas-rangers-historic-injury-woes/ That is actually two months old and it got worse. At last count, the Rangers had used 32 different pitchers.

No. The service ceiling of a unarmed Su-25 is 23,000 feet (roughly 10,000 feet below the altitude of MH17) and that number is only going to drop as you add weapons. Training is not going to change what is a fundamental matter of thrust versus weight and somehow allow an Su-25 to reach 33,000 feet. You can't bend the laws of physics no matter how hard you try. Edit: Claims that the frogfoot can reach 10km are unsupported. I've not seen a reliable source to support that. At the very least, you have the issue of trying to fly a plane with an unpressurized cabin to altitudes that require pressurization. Airspeed is also an issue. According to the Sukhoi website the SU-25K has a maximum speed of 0,82 Mach at sea level. http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su25k/lth/ According to the Boeing website the Boeing 777 has a cruising speed of 0,84 Mach at 35.000 feet. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_lrproduct.page The slower Su-25 can not overtake a faster 777 and close to 800m or less to be in range of the 30mm cannon. The Su 25 could have already been in front of MH17 (which contradicts the Russian version actually - more on that in a bit). But even if that were the case, the difference in maximum ceilings of the planes would have precluded the cannon fire scenario. You were right the first time - the Su-25 is too low and (probably) too slow. I suggest you read the following article where the idea that a Su-25 was the culprit is pretty much debunked - including the cannon fire scenario. Another jet type maybe but not an Su-25. http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/can-the-su-25-intercept-and-shoot-down-a-777/ The Russians have specifically mentioned that a Su-25 in the area as the culprit (and not a higher ceiling interceptor such as the Su-27 or Mig-29). If they were unsure of the plane id, why not say so? They went on to state that the SU-25 was armed with air-to-air missiles and was spotted within 3 to 5 km of Mh17. No closer? If yes, then why not mention it? FFS, they're pretty specific of the type of plane, the type of armament it carries and everything else. So shouldn't we believe them on face value about the distances too? If we accept their description so far, that rules out the Kh-13 heat-seeker missile entirely since its range is 1.92 km (1.2 miles). That range also rules out the 30 mm cannon fire which has a maximum effective range against aerial targets of 200 to 800 m (that's within visual range so there would be no mistaking the plane type or markings). Again the difference in service ceilings rules out cannon fire as a possibility. Do the maths it isn't rocket science (oh wait yes it is). 10km service ceiling 777 versus 7km service ceiling Su25 means the Su-25 could not get closer than 3000 meters which is nearly 4 times the GSH-30s maximum effective engagement range. The Russians also stated that "the SU-25 approached from the south west of MH17 and opened fire". Maybe they're leaving something out in the description. We do know that MH17 was flying on a E or ESE heading (I don't have the exact compass heading - sorry) so a plane attacking from the SW would be approaching from behind and have to fire against the starboard side of MH17. But all of the "shrapnel/gunfire damage" is on the port side of the plane and the penetration angles indicate the "shrapnel/cannon fire" came from in front of the c0ckpit or roughly from the NE. So lets give the Russians the benefit of the doubt and saying that their description was incomplete. That means that the Su25 would have to close the range and overtake (and pass) MH17 in order to wheel around to be in a position to begin its attack from the North or port side of MH17. Tell me how the slower Su-25 managed to do that please. Again the service ceiling differences rule out cannon fire anyway. So at this point, the Russian version isn't adding up. The attack scenario doesn't account for the air speed characteristics, the difference in service ceilings, the weapon range of the 30mm cannon or the relative weakness of the air-to-air missiles. In less polite terms, its bull****. I suggest doing a google search and look at what fire from a 30mm cannon looks like. Against a thin skinned aluminum airframe like the Boeing 777 the holes caused by 30mm shells would be much larger than the ones seen in the MH17 photos. Here's a pic of a 30mm cannon shell (30mm is roughly 1.18 inchs) or this link to another pic of the shell from the A-10 30mm cannon: http://hooverae.com/upload/files/150308/8762286.jpeg and here's a pic of the damage caused by 20mm cannon fire from an F-16: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/6ac94a49c6d51725abc104a4b8968108-jpg.8311/ Are the shrapnel penetrations on MH17 anything like that in size (remember that the Su-25 has a 30mm cannon not 20mm)? Those holes in the SUV are fist sized holes and that's only from a 20mm cannon. The shrapnel penetrations on MH17 are consistently much smaller. There's also a Rh-60 air to air missile carried by the SU-25. The Rh-60s has a small 6 lb warhead and while a hit from one might have damaged a Boeing 777 it is highly unlikely that it would do enough damage to destroy it on contact. For reference KAL007 was hit by a K-8 missile with a 88 pound warhead. That's more akin to the SA-11 and its 150+ pound warhead than the considerably smaller Rh-60. None of this means that there wasn't an Su-25 nearby but it's highly unlikely that it was responsible for shooting down MH17. That leaves the SAM scenario as the most likely. That doesn't mean it was a Russian SAM - but it was almost certainly a SAM and the Su-25 story doesn't survive close scrutiny. http://www.rferl.org/content/malaysian-probability-russia-claims-aircraft-su25/25466500.html Here's a thread with numerous images from MH-17 (I suggest starting from page 4 but there's a lot of info there) https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mh17-evidence-a-missile-was-used-shrapnel-etc.3997/ According to Reed Foster a defense specialist at IHSJanes: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/21/world/europe/wreckage-offers-clues-on-why-flight-17-went-down.html?emc=edit_th_20140722&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=25300769&_r=1 Here's a photo of a what a fragmentation warhead for the 2k12 Kub / SA-6 system looks like: Lots of lethal little projectiles coming off that missile. Like a huge shotgun blast. Edit: There are claims that the M1 variant of the Su-25 has an increased service ceiling, possibly up to 10km. According to details of the modifications "The [modification] project included the reinforcement of structural components, the installment of advanced electronic navigational equipment and a new ****pit with multiple function monitors." There is no mention of adding additional power or improving engine performance. All of those modifications means that you've just added weight and adding weight without adding power won't make an SU-25 go higher or faster. Again it's physics. The presence of an Su-25 in the area, even if its true, doesn't prove that it was the culprit. I don't doubt (at least not totally) the Russian claim that there was an Su-25 in the area. But their story of the engagement isn't holding up. And then there's this: I think it hilarious that some moron thought he could get away with that.

Alex Rios placed on revocable waivers - teams have until Thursday to place a claim. Rangers are said to be willing to eat some of Rios' salary. Rios has a six-team no-trade clause that allows him to block trades to the Yankees, Diamondbacks, Rockies, Royals, Astros and Athletics. Teams said to be interested include Seattle, NY, KC, and Detroit from the AL and Giants and Reds from the NL. No word on whether the Rangers have asked for waivers on Neil Cotts - the Orioles, Braves and Nationals are interested and the Rangers are still pursuing signing Cotts to an extension. Edit: Nationals have claimed Matt Thornton off revocable waivers from the Yankees. Thornton is a lefty RP (same as Cotts). That may cool their interest in Cotts if they can come to terms with the Yankees on Thornton.

Brandin Cooks looks like a gem. http://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/2014/7/31/5950345/saints-training-camp-2014-brandin-cooks-shines-early Watch the Vine video .......

Relax and eat an apple. Jedz Jablka Na Zlosc Putinowi

I'm hoping for 40 bombs and about a billion doubles off the monster. The Sawx definitely improved their lineup quite a bit with all the moves they made, but they completely gutted their rotation. They do have some good arms in the farm system, but how many of them, if any, will be ready to play in the majors in 2015? We'll get to see some of them during the rest of this year since they will have to get the call up, ready or not. Somebody has to pitch for the Sawx this year and they traded away almost all their starters. As for Lester coming back next season, I don't see it happening. I'd be happy if I was wrong, though. Just for grins (or not if you're a Sawx fan ..) here's what you have to look forward to in the 2015 FA starting pitcher market (age in parenthesis, followed by contract option if pertinent) ...... Starting Pitchers Brett Anderson (27) – $12MM club option with a $1.5MM buyout Josh Beckett (35) Chad Billingsley (30) – $14MM club option with a $3MM buyout Joe Blanton (34) A.J. Burnett (38) – mutual option Chris Capuano (36) Bruce Chen (38) – $5.5MM mutual option with a $1MM buyout Wei-Yin Chen (29) – $4.75MM club option with a $372K buyout Kevin Correia (34) Johnny Cueto (29) – $10MM club option with an $800K buyout Jorge De La Rosa (34) Ryan Dempster (38) Gavin Floyd (32) Yovani Gallardo (29) – $13MM club option with a $600K buyout Jason Hammel (32) J.A. Happ (32) – $6.7MM club option Aaron Harang (37) Dan Haren (34) – $10MM player option if 180 innings reached in 2014 Roberto Hernandez (34) Hisashi Iwakuma (34) – $7MM club option with a $1MM buyout Josh Johnson (31) – $4MM club option Kyle Kendrick (30) Hiroki Kuroda (40) Jon Lester (31) Colby Lewis (35) Francisco Liriano (31) Paul Maholm (33) Justin Masterson (30) Brandon McCarthy (31) Brandon Morrow (30) – $10MM club option with a $1MM buyout Felipe Paulino (31) – $4MM club option with a $250K buyout Jake Peavy (34) Wandy Rodriguez (36) Ervin Santana (32) Joe Saunders (34) Max Scherzer (30) James Shields (33) Carlos Villanueva (31) Ryan Vogelsong (37) Edinson Volquez (30) Jerome Williams (33) If resigning Lester is unlikely, there is only one name that really jumps off that list if you're looking for a front end guy for the rotation. Apparently so. A report from Peter Gammons said that the Pirates actually made a better offer for Price but the Rays turned it down. http://www.raysindex.com/2014/08/rays-david-price-pirates.html I was hoping to see the Rangers move both Cotts and possibly Rios for additional prospects. (still possible that both get moved if they clear waivers) Especially outfielders or first base since the Rangers are fairly well stocked at middle infield and pitching in the farm system. Losing Rios would hurt since the free agent market for outfielders sucks in 2015 and Gallo projects at 3B and isn't ML ready (he's only 20) although he's bashing the crap (37 HRs) out of AA. Still it's only AA Frisco ........

1. Meteosat satellites do not transmit "streaming video" but rather provide a single image at 15 minute interval or 3 pictures at 30 minute intervals (depending on the version of the sat) 2. the resolution of the alleged video far exceeds anything produced from the Metosat satellites which measures their resolution in kms (!) 3. and finallly, none of the Meteosat satellites are or were positioned over Ukraine; particularly Meteosat 8 which is the alleged source of the "video". http://en.allmetsat.com/satellite-meteosat.php There is nothing to indicate any location of the video. Given the shaky provenance of the video I'm beyond skeptical. That video is total bull**** and so is your claim. Next time try one of these conspiracy theories oby: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2014/0722/What-really-happened-to-MH17-Russia-s-media-have-the-answer-video

And just to rub salt into the wound. 3-0

Same problem for Brazil as versus Germany. Terrible defense.

The term "Palestinian" also referred to Jews residing in Palestine until the PLO redefined it in the 1960's. "..... the PLO's Palestine National Council in July 1968, defined "Palestinians" as "those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there." Earlier historians such as Herodotus used the term to refer to all residents of Palestine, making no distinction between the Jews and other inhabitants of the region. As for the historical record as to who has occupied the region, here is a decent breakdown tracing the area's "ownership" all the way back to the Canaanites. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607 In fairness, some scholars date the origin of the term back to the Palestinian Uprisings in the early 20th century.

Awesome pics.

The internet is weird. Understatement of the day.

LOL I'll probably see more of the effects of the storm than Hurlshot will - the hurricane is moving up the east coast and NC issued an evacuation for the Outer Banks. N'awlins is safe. Besides sustained winds are only at 60 mph (with forecast for a max of 74 mph) which is only a Cat 1 storm.

Except that Messi was signed to a contract to the FC Barcelona youth team at the age of 13 before he started HGH treatments. Messi was diagnosed with HGH deficiency at the age of 11 when he stood 4'2" tall. His family couldn't afford the treatments (~900 to 1500$ a month - reports vary) but FC Barcelona agreed to foot the bill (pun unintentional) as part of the contract he signed. Say what you will, but I doubt FC Barcelona signs a kid to a contract and agrees to cover his medical bills unless he shows some serious level of talent. Point of fact is that Messi didn't need a performance enhancer - he was already a wizard with the football. @Lefered - Technically Messi was a professional when he was first given HGH treatments. He was just working his way up thru the Barelona juvenil teams and then the C and B squads before he made his first appearance with the A team at the age of 16.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwOJlOI1nU

Lionel Hollins in as coach of the Nets?

The original "Bunnie" (named after Brown's daughter) was a P-51D-25NA flown by Capt. Roscoe C. Brown. His unit was the "Red Tails" of the 100th Fighter Squadron, 332nd Fighter Group, out of Ramitelli Italy - better known as the Tuskegee Airmen. Brown scored two air-to-air kills in the plane - one versus an FW-190 and the other versus a ME262. The P-51 on display is a fiberglass replica - the restoration of an authentic P-51 was still underway as of last year. The Dauntless SBD-3/A24 (BuNo. 06508) to the right (just the starboard wing is visible) is authentic - that plane was involved in the Battle of Guadalcanal and operated from Henderson Field by Marine Scout Bombing Squadrons (VMSB) 141 and 132. It was reassigned to the aircraft carrier Enterprise in the spring of 1943.