Fraud in Gagarin's Flight Record Claims -- FAI Doesn't Care
Jim Oberg
section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
to put it into perspective:
As the Soviet Union racked up one "space first" after another in the 1960s,
it also executed the bureaucratic duty of registering many of these firsts.
The world body responsible for all flight records was the International
Aviation Federation (FAI in French) in Paris. Registrations with the FAI
were in the form of bound large-format descriptions of the events for which
the claims were being made, with appropriate official signatures. One of the
most frequent signers for the Soviet claims was Ivan Borisenko, titled
"sports commissar".
Just why he had been chosen I could never figure out. Maybe he owned the
stop watch. In any case, a few decades after the Soviet-era glory came the
post-Soviet cold and hunger. Struggling on with an inadequate pension,
Borisenko produced his own personal archive of two dozen space records claim
folders and offered them for sale in the West.
It was this set of handsomely-bound documents that I was inspecting and
authenticating for my host and paying client, Kaller's America Gallery in
New York City. We would catalog each one, and I would read it over in
Russian to note the accuracy of its claims. One thing I noted about the
claims was the almost universal insistence that the launch site of these
"space firsts", Baykonur, was located at precisely 47:22:00 north, 65:29:00
east. Ever since the first American U-2 spy plane flew over Russia in 1956,
the launch pad has been known to be at 45:55:00 north and 63:20:00 east.
Foreign observers had always suspected that the error was deliberate,
presumably to get the next U-2 spy planes to stray off course. Finally, in
an incredibly rich collection of Russian space memoirs published in New York
the same year as the auction, two former Soviet officials independently
described how the falsehood originated. It was just as we suspected, but
it's the real inside story.
Vladimir Yastrebov, an expert in spacecraft tracking, wrote about his exact
role in the deception: "I was personally involved in naming the Tyura-Tam
launch site 'Baikonur' so as to disguise its true location. A few days after
Gagarin's flight, my management sent me to one of the central
administrations of the Ministry of Defense to meet with Col. Kerim A.
Kerimov. Together with a senior officer from his section called Alexei
Maximov, I was asked to draw up the records of Gagarin's flight in terms of
range and altitude for registration with the International Aviation
Federation in Paris. Preparing the document was easy enough, but we
encountered a major hurdle when deciding how to identify the site from which
the Vostok launch vehicle had lifted off. Since we were not allowed for
security reasons to name Tyura-Tam, we studied the map and chose a
ballistically plausible down-range alternative in the form of a small Kazakh
settlement called Baikonur. And that is what the cosmodrome has been called
ever since."
Reading further in the same book, "Roads to Space", I found that Alexandr
(not Alexei) Maximov, an official of the Ministry of Defense responsible for
space activities, had also contributed a memoir. He told much the same
story, but slightly garbled with regard to the dates and organizations: "So
where did the name Baikonur come from?" he wrote. "In accordance with an
international treaty, we had to register our Aug. 21 [1957] ICBM launch with
the United Nations, indicating the date, time, and place of launch."
"Since there were no spy satellites in orbit yet, nobody knew where the test
range was situated, and we were not keen to divulge that information for
security reasons. We therefore decided to indicate a site whose existence
the Americans could verify. With their radars they were able to track the
flight of our rocket and, by working backward, calculate the approximate
location of the launch site. So we decided to give the Telegraph Agency of
the Soviet Union and the United Nations the name of a place situated some
250 kilometers away from Tyura-Tam. That place happened to be called
Baikonur -- and ostensibly that is where we have been launching from ever
since."
Yastrebov's account is more accurate since the Baikonur story was associated
with the first manned flight aboard 'Vostok' and with the 1961 FAI
registration, not with the earlier missile test. But Maximov's account is
essentially corroborative regarding the motivation and the action itself.
So the official claims contained intentional falsehoods. I'd always presumed
that the FAI has prohibitions and penalties for submitting knowingly false
claims, and there can be no argument that this data was submitted in full
knowledge that it was false. Nobody expected the Soviet Union to tell the
truth, so we all became accustomed to swallowing lies. In recent years,
however, Russia has wanted to become a normal country, to behave by
internationally-accepted norms, and to earn the trust of the world. Could
standards be applied retroactively?
Sure enough, I found the FAI "Sporting Code" on the Internet. It has an
entire section on "Complaints", and section 5.2 is entitled "Penalties and
Disqualifications". Subsection 5.2.2.3 defines "Unsporting Behavior" this
way: "Cheating or unsporting behavior, including deliberate attempts to
deceive or mislead officials, falsification of documents, or repeated
serious infringements of rules should, as a guide, result in
disqualification from the sporting event."
There was no need to withdraw the Russian flight records, since they really
had performed the feats described. But I was hopeful that the false
information could at least be expunged from the archives of the world body.
I figured that the best way to do that was to have some official just ask
the Russians to file a letter of amendment to the original claims.
It wasn't as easy as all that, I discovered. I located the U.S. association
affiliated with the FAI, the "National Aeronautic Association" in Arlington,
Virginia, and I proposed to them that the Russians be asked to correct the
false information on their original records claims.
On November 21, 1997, association official Art Greenfield (the secretary of
the "Contests and Records Board") wrote back to me to politely explain why
that wasn't going to happen. "I understand that you believe the Russians
falsified the coordinates of the launch site of those flights in the record
dossiers," he began, adding that since they don't have those dossiers on
file at their office, they had no way of confirming this.
"Perhaps the Russians did attempt to mislead us about the takeoff location
for reasons of national security," he conceded. However, since the actual
flights are not in doubt, "we see no compelling reason to confront our
Russian counterparts with allegations of wrongdoing dating back to the Cold
War era." He concluded that these days both Russians and Americans "are
actively involved" with work that "promotes public understanding and
awareness of the importance of space flight," and furthermore, "We hope that
this cooperative effort will continue for as long as we explore space."
Max Bishop, the FAI Secretary General in Paris, concurred. "No space records
depend on the precise location of the launch site," he pointed out quite
correctly. "Therefore modifying the coordinates of Baikonur will in no way
affect any FAI-approved performance. We do not intend to take any action."
Mary Pegg
> This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
> section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
> to put it into perspective:
<snip>
Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
complete the flight?
Vladimir Makarenko
Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
VM.
Jim Oberg
"Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote
> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
You have trouble with English, malchik?
It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
tens of billions of dollars in response.
It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
space achievements. If I were a Russian, and
somebody said, "Yeah, we know the Russians
lie about stuff but we have to get used to it, they're
only Russians, after all, they can't help themselves,"
I'd be insulted. But that's only me.
Maybe you're proud of getting away with so many lies?
All I hoped to do was add an asterisk to the Soviet-era
records documentation that some information in them
was later found to be false.
Mary Pegg
> Mary Pegg wrote:
>
>> Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
>> the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
>> complete the flight?
>
> Anything to get the butt fucking dumb American public off the glaring
> NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
>
> That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
<sigh>
My point is that if the FAI don't care about the bailing out, they certainly
won't care that the launch location is a couple of degrees out.
Gagarin will be remembered long after the FAI has been consigned to history.
What your point is exactly, FIIK.
Irwin Fletcher
> As in weapons of mass destruction?
Hey Thomas,
Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
gracious enough to arrange for their burial.
Rusty
Didn't the Soviets also eject and land the dogs separately from the
Vostok test flights?
If so, then the chimp Enos was the first creature to land with an
orbital spacecraft in Mercury-Atlas 5 on 29-Nov-1961.
Rusty
Vladimir Makarenko
Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote
> > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>
> You have trouble with English, malchik?
>
> It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
> practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
> tens of billions of dollars in response.
>
> It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
> Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
> space achievements.
Man, you really have a problem. You want to change a couple of records
in whatever book - go ahead. You are not seriously thinking that I care?
But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space. If you
so upset that Gagarin bailed out while landing or left some garbage on
the orbit - well, who gives a damn except you? - go change the archives
records or whatever, just don't be such a drama queen.
Boring.
VM.
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
"Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:444689E5...@popmail.med.nyu.edu...
>
> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>
> VM.
>
So now they are last in space.
Don't feel bad though, lots of Euros are sitting around talking about the
good ol' days. Think about all the Spaniards that are dreaming of the days
when they were beating up defenseless indigenous peoples in the Americas. I
could go on but you get the picture.
Vladimir Makarenko
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
>
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:444689E5...@popmail.med.nyu.edu...
> >
> > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
> >
> > VM.
> >
>
> So now they are last in space.
Last or the last?
>
> Don't feel bad though, lots of Euros are sitting around talking about the
> good ol' days. Think about all the Spaniards that are dreaming of the days
> when they were beating up defenseless indigenous peoples in the Americas. I
> could go on but you get the picture.
I don't think much about the space techs anyway. However in my wild
guess what Russians are really thinking today is how much to charge the
world for their exclusive ability to fly and launch spaceships.
Make the math if you are capable.
VM.
Brian Thorn
<maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
lie about them in 1961?
Brian
vkar...@yahoo.com
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> Mary Pegg wrote:
>
> NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
>
> That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
>
>
Thomas, I don't think you realize the inmportance of such things. As it
stands, USA id just 1 Guinness world records ahead of the next
competitiors: Germans. As the Germans plan 2 new world records planned
in hte next month: one for eating the most sourkraut while singing
"Deutschland, Deutschland, Ueber Alles!" and the other one for writing
the most anti-Serb articles in a period of one week. USA has just one
planned: the record number of foreign journalists tortured by being
made to eat the most number of huamburgers.
If USA is to keep its coveted World leadership in the Guinnnes race,
Soviet primacy in space travel have to be taken away and given to our
good old Ameircan Wernher Von Braun. No, wait! Wernher and his team
were also Germans!
Unfortunately, after the death of Wernher Von Braun and his Nazi SS
team, their blueprints for space travel have been lost because NASA
doesn't have any transaltors from German.
But USA still holds the most important space travel record for the
greatest number of astronauts taken to space by the Russian Zoyuz
craft.
Moreover, I hear NASA is deadlocked with China and India in a race to
be the first country other than Russia to be able to send a craft into
space and be able to return it wihtout any major explosions. I hear
NASA is planning to spend many $billions on this noble task. Although
this can be solved much more cheaply by hiring a German translator...
vkar...@yahoo.com
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:444689E5...@popmail.med.nyu.edu...
> >
> > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
> >
> > VM.
> >
>
> So now they are last in space.
>
Ironic, isn't it? When the Rusisans first went into Space, we all
thought that just 10 years later, at least 10 ohter coutries would be
in Space.
And surely, just a few years later the USA was the second country in
Space.
But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
country has joined these two, but one of these two - USA - lost all of
its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.
So, now Russia is once again the only Space country. The last one in
space, as you put it so well. And if some American astronauts want to
see what the Earth looks like from the ooutside, NASA has to beg Rusisa
to take them there on hteir Soyuz craft.
What Nazi SS secret died with Von Braun's death? Can't we somehow
recover it? Does NASA have any German translators?
Moreover, for almost 10 years, all Russian space and nuclear secrets
were open to the CIA. How come CIA did such a lousy job putting them to
use? Is the problem the same as with Von Braun's legacy: no Russian
translators?
Rusty
"Vonce da rockets go up, who cares vere dey come down!
Dat's not my department!", says Wernher Von Braun.
;-)
Rusty
Vladimir Makarenko
You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
another loser whining.
And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
thousands of documents including those dated by fifties. So what lies
from mid XX cent. is necessary to protect today hiding the truth?
VM.
> Brian
Sander Vesik
The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
on Kurds...
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
> Brian Thorn wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
>> <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>>>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>>>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
>>
>>
>> If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>> lie about them in 1961?
>>
>
> You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
> had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
> They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just another
> loser whining.
>
Soviets lied about all sorts of minor details...like their vast military
industrial complex that was created for the sole purpose of researching and
manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
They lied about the Katyn massacre. They lied about the gulag system.
The entire Soviet Union was nothing but lies.
The entire solar system is littered with Soviet space junk, failed missions
that they "forgot" to mention.
Jim Oberg
"Sander Vesik" <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote
> The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
> sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
> on Kurds...
Since we didn't, I doubt they would --
can't you guys break the chain of telling lies to each other?
Brian Thorn
>> So now they are last in space.
>Ironic, isn't it?
No, just uninformed.
>When the Rusisans first went into Space, we all
>thought that just 10 years later, at least 10 ohter coutries would be
>in Space.
>
>And surely, just a few years later the USA was the second country in
>Space.
Years?
Sputnik 1 (USSR): October 4, 1957
Explorer 1 (USA): January 31, 1958
Vostok 1 (Gagarin): April 12, 1961
Freedom 7 (Shepard): May 5, 1961 (suborbital)
Friendship 7 (Glenn): February 20, 1962
>But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
>country has joined these two, but one of these two -
Er, pay no attention to China's Shenzhou 5 and Shenzhou 6...
>USA - lost all of
>its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.
Funny, they just did so on August 9, 2005.
Brian
Brian Thorn
<maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>> lie about them in 1961?
>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
>another loser whining.
Nonsense. The only one whining around here is you. The rest of us have
acknowledged that Gagarin was heroic and the first man to travel in
space.
>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
>thousands of documents including those dated by fifties.
Reference?
Brian
Jorge R. Frank
news:o2nd42lm01v8fcosm...@4ax.com:
And under a broader definition of "they", three times in 2004 as well.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Ten Cuidado
Malchik, you're a sorry excuse for a man. Your bias is obvious. You need
to grow up.
Rand Simberg
>>Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
>>
>>Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
>>died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
>>gracious enough to arrange for their burial.
>
>
> The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
> sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
> on Kurds...
Actually, Iraqi Kurdistan is one of the friendliest places to Americans
on the planet about now.
vkar...@yahoo.com
>
> >> So now they are last in space.
>
> >Ironic, isn't it?
>
> No, just uninformed.
>
> >When the Rusisans first went into Space, we all
> >thought that just 10 years later, at least 10 ohter coutries would be
> >in Space.
> >
> >And surely, just a few years later the USA was the second country in
> >Space.
>
> Years?
>
> Sputnik 1 (USSR): October 4, 1957
> Explorer 1 (USA): January 31, 1958
>
> Vostok 1 (Gagarin): April 12, 1961
> Freedom 7 (Shepard): May 5, 1961 (suborbital)
> Friendship 7 (Glenn): February 20, 1962
>
> >But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
> >country has joined these two, but one of these two -
>
> Er, pay no attention to China's Shenzhou 5 and Shenzhou 6...
>
True. But I was replying to that idiot Brookski (aka Ivan Ivanovich)
who tried to make fun of Rusisans because they are the "last in
space". As you have pointed out, Russians aren't the last ones left in
space. Chinese arer there too. And someday even Americans may re-join
them. In terms of manned craft.
But I really don't think it's wise to spend US taxpayer money on
traveling in space when there are so many countries still to be
invaded here on Earht: Belarus, Iran, Venezuella, Peru, Syria, Cuba,
North Korea, Uzbekistan. The US government and the
military-indutstrial complex can easily steal at least $10 trillion
more in taxpayer money here on Earth before we have to go back into
space.
BTW, here is a wild idea as to why USA can no longer fly safe manned
craft into space after Von Braun's death. NASA no longer wants to rely
exclusively on foreign scientists and engineers. But with the way we
educate our children these days, our high school graduates can barely
add two fractions, while our gifted children are forced to rot in
classes with mental retards (and those are just the teachers). Thus,
fewer and fewer US high school graduates are capable of being
scientists and engineers. Thus, unless NASA follows the high tech
indistry's example amd limits the number of US engineers to no more
than, say, 1% - NASA is doomed.
Of course, another solution would be to improve elementary and
secondary education and to even give parents choice, but that can't be
done because this would be discriminatory, as gifted students would
learn more than very special children (children with IQs below 80). No
concientious liberal would ever agree to that.
>
> >USA - lost all of
> >its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.
>
> Funny, they just did so on August 9, 2005.
>
I was talking about manned craft.
Scott Hedrick
<vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145485594.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
> country has joined these two
The Chinese would disagree.
And *they* managed to land inside their Soviet-designed spaceship, the first
time.
Jorge R. Frank
@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
So was Brian. Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence may not be men, but the
rest of the STS-114 crew would likely object to your statement.
Jim Davis
> My point? What's the FAI and why should I care?
>
> I don't see how they are going to stop me from launching a
> rocket from the Bahamas using Russian engines.
I somehow doubt anyone sees this as an insuperable problem. :-)
Jim Davis
Vladimir Makarenko
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>>>lie about them in 1961?
>
>
>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
>
>
> Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
> that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
> rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
> of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
>
>
>>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
>>another loser whining.
>
>
> Nonsense. The only one whining around here is you. The rest of us have
> acknowledged that Gagarin was heroic and the first man to travel in
> space.
Switch from "I" to "we" is always very symptomatic. It doesn't work
though. Better try to cut your crap.
>
>
>>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
>>thousands of documents including those dated by fifties.
>
>
> Reference?
E.g. NYT of 04/19/2006 - i.e. today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19weds4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Now read and continue to bitch how Soviets won space race.
VM.
>
> Brian
Vladimir Makarenko
Doesn't matter what a big mouth you have it'll not accomodate my "malchik".
Get lost, pervert.
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:fsWdnfF8xtF8W9vZ...@comcast.com...
>
>>Brian Thorn wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
>>><maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But whatever number of commas you will change in these records, add or
>>>>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
>>>>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
>>>
>>>
>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>>>lie about them in 1961?
>>>
>>
>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
>>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just another
>>loser whining.
>>
>
>
> Soviets lied about all sorts of minor details...like their vast military
> industrial complex that was created for the sole purpose of researching and
> manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
>
> They lied about the Katyn massacre. They lied about the gulag system.
>
> The entire Soviet Union was nothing but lies.
>
> The entire solar system is littered with Soviet space junk, failed missions
> that they "forgot" to mention.
Now stop hysterics, get preparationH and go to visit your buddy Bill
O'Reilly. You will need the both looking for WMD.
VM.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
>>>terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>>>Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>>
>>
>>It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
>>practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
>>tens of billions of dollars in response.
>>
>>It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
>>Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
>>space achievements.
>
>
> Man, you really have a problem. You want to change a couple of records
> in whatever book - go ahead. You are not seriously thinking that I care?
> subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
> so upset that Gagarin bailed out while landing or left some garbage on
> the orbit - well, who gives a damn except you? - go change the archives
> records or whatever, just don't be such a drama queen.
> Boring.
>
> VM.
Well, you know Vladi, a little lie here, and another one there, and
perhaps a whopper in some other reference book, or perhaps a page
deleted from an encyclopedia, or a figure skillfully erased from
a photograph, AND PRETTY SOON YOU WILL HAVE REWRITTEN HISTORY.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> So, now Russia is once again the only Space country. The last one in
> space, as you put it so well. And if some American astronauts want to
> see what the Earth looks like from the ooutside, NASA has to beg Rusisa
> to take them there on hteir Soyuz craft.
>
> What Nazi SS secret died with Von Braun's death? Can't we somehow
> recover it? Does NASA have any German translators?
>
> Moreover, for almost 10 years, all Russian space and nuclear secrets
> were open to the CIA. How come CIA did such a lousy job putting them to
> use? Is the problem the same as with Von Braun's legacy: no Russian
> translators?
>
But surely NASA can hire you and/or Makarenko for peanuts to translate
the russian and MTRP to translate the german into some semblance of
American english :) :-p
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> Soviets lied about all sorts of minor details...like their vast military
> industrial complex that was created for the sole purpose of researching and
> manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.
True. Lies minor and major . But lying is not an exclusively russian trait.
>
> They lied about the Katyn massacre. They lied about the gulag system.
True
>
> The entire Soviet Union was nothing but lies.
That's being too absolutist.
>
> The entire solar system is littered with Soviet space junk,
> failed missions that they "forgot" to mention.
>
Well not that much space junk. Failed launches that become space junk
are very visible. Failures on the ground like the N1 explosion don't
create space junk. But yours is a needlessly vindictive accusation.
After all there's no requirement to report failed missions.
It's just that one shouldn't deny them in order to make oneself look
better.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> Doesn't matter what a big mouth you have it'll not accomodate my "malchik".
> Get lost, pervert.
>
> VM.
>
Oh what a suggestion Vladi :)
I'd say that certainly the perversion here is all yours.
You should be ashamed making such an invitation.
cfl...@hotmail.com
Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
> Brian Thorn wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:59:18 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
> > <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>subtract a couple degrees, it will never change the fact that Soviets
> >>did not lie about their achievements: they were first in space.
> >
> >
> > lie about them in 1961?
> >
>
> You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
> had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
> They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
> another loser whining.
>
Actually more to the point, is that the Soviets played the same game,
and bitched to anyone who would listen about the LEAST little mistake
or typo-goof anyone else made- while DELIBERATELY lying themselves.
This is called 'hypocracy'. (Look it up.) The US conducted their
program in pretty much openess (granted, there were some secrets in
certain areas, NO ONE is denying that), but the Soviets were completely
behind the curtain. Because they only announced successful results,
anyone trying to do the same thing got wrong information- such as
success rates for different types of vehicles, ballistic results, etc.
Jim can tell you better what exactly was screwed up because of that,
but I do know the US spent a hell of a lot of time, effort, and money
reflying several planetary missions because the Soviets lied about
their successes. Their claims that Venera 4 transmitted from the
Venusian surface affected Venus probes' results for years. They failed
to announce failed launches, leading to all sorts of wild speculations,
including a potential highning of tensions during the Cuban Missile
Crisis when debris from a failed launch was detected coming over the
DEW line.
And complaints about current malfeisence is about as relevant as
mentioning Watergate in a discussion of how President Lincoln made his
political decisions.
Volker Hetzer
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote
>> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
>> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>
> You have trouble with English, malchik?
>
> It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
> practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
> tens of billions of dollars in response.
>
> It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
> Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
> space achievements.
the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
in space at all. Really, who cares?
> If I were a Russian, and
> somebody said, "Yeah, we know the Russians
> lie about stuff but we have to get used to it, they're
> only Russians, after all, they can't help themselves,"
> I'd be insulted. But that's only me.
So your government never fed false information to the enemy?
Or your allies, fwiw?
Lots of Greetings!
Volker
captain.
> But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
> country has joined these two, but one of these two -
china has.
captain.
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:HcB1g.338$%96...@fe06.lga...
>
> That's why we post here on sci.space.policy, we are just spilling over
> because of the cross posting. What we want is for the US, Russia, China
> and India, and every other third world country to participate in the
> development of space, cooperatively and independently. It is good for
> education, good for diplomacy, good for the populations, and good for
> technology, and hopefully, if it's done right, good for the environment.
>
> It sure beats the hell out of a nightmarish descent into global food,
> water, oil and resource wars, weaponization, and nuclear armageddon.
>
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
can't argue with that.
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
"captain." <spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
news:5nI1g.3221$fL.2927@edtnps90...
Boring. It may be a big event for China, but not for the world.
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
> Brian Thorn wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
>> <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
>>>>lie about them in 1961?
>>
>>
>>>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
>>>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
>>
>>
>> Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
>> that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
>> rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
>> of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
>
> Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
> didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
> rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
>
...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:L3F1g.32248$Jk3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
He does it all the time but his mom keeps saying "no".
Mary Pegg
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
> vkar...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1145502902.681683.321610
> @v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I was talking about manned craft.
>
> So was Brian. Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence may not be men, but the
> rest of the STS-114 crew would likely object to your statement.
Get thee to a dictionary. "Manned" is not gender specific.
Jorge R. Frank
$g76....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:
Get bent. It was a joke.
Mary Pegg
> This is called 'hypocracy'. (Look it up.)
"a government characterized by hypocrisy" - is that what you meant?
Jim Oberg
<cfl...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Actually more to the point, is that the Soviets played the same game,
> and bitched to anyone who would listen about the LEAST little mistake
> or typo-goof anyone else made- while DELIBERATELY lying themselves.
Example: they complained to the FAI that White's EVA, and all subsequent
USA spacewalks, shouldn't be counted as 'REAL' EVAs because the
astronauts were on umbilical lines from their spacecraft. Amazingly,
the frenchies found some 'nads and told the soviet rep to stuff it.
Jim Oberg
> They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
> in space at all. Really, who cares?
Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:
[I]t is reasonable to question the importance of a 1961 fraud in 2001.
That is, is there anybody out there who doesn't already know that the
official Soviet location for the cosmodrome is false? Why bother with an
official correction?
A compelling reason is that the original deception persists through sheer
informational inertia. Even a cursory survey of existing cartographic
products shows this. For example, recent world globes from Replogle (such as
the WORLD HORIZON "Livingston Illuminated" globe) and a World News Map
published by "U.S. News and World Report" show the town of Baykonur in its
correct location . But I would argue that nobody looks up Baykonur out of
interest in obscure coal-mining towns (in population and genuine importance
it's much too minor a spot to earn its own place on these maps), but only
out of a desire to find out where the famous cosmodrome of the same name is
located. If so, they are misled, since it is the "false Baykonur".
So I play this game whenever I visit book stores, and you can play too.
Check out the latest world atlases to see if they have the cosmodrome at the
correct location on the Syr Darya River just east of the Aral Sea, or if
they label "Baykonur" where the original and utterly unimportant town still
is. Hammond's "New Century World Atlas" (1997) has the false location, as
does "Webster's Concise World Atlas" (1998). So does Rand McNally's "Classic
World Atlas" (1996). The French mapmaker Gabelli issued a map of Asia in
1994, and it showed the false Baikonur.
Even more explicitly, the 1994 Oxford Encyclopedic World Atlas has a special
updated section on the new post-Soviet geography, and its feature on
Kazakhstan specifies the Baykonur Cosmodrome as one of the most important
features of that new country. But the Baykonur shown on the actual map is
the deceptive one. And in the Oxford Dictionary of the World (Oxford
University Press, 1996, editor David Mauro), the definition of "Baikonur" on
page 63 is "a coal-mining town in Kazakhstan, n.e. of the Aral Sea. Nearby
is the Baikonur Cosmodrome". Neither the Oxford atlas, nor the other
misleading products mentioned earlier, show anything at all near the Syr
Darya River where the cosmodrome and its support city of Leninsk are
actually situated.
Some did get it right, such as 'National Geographic'. Some listed the old
"Baikonur" but also had correctly-located entries such as "Space Launching
Centre" or "Leninsk" (the city where the space workers live). But they
obviously didn't rely on official FAI documents for their information.
Without making too big a deal out of a minor historical falsification, I've
always figured that continued toleration of such deception is an insult to
modern Russia. Isn't it just a condescending way of saying, "We know
Russians are liars, so why bother to expect them to tell the truth?" If I
were a Russian, I would deeply resent such bigotry.
This isn't just ancient space history. The same attitude has persisted all
the way into the current day. Throughout this book, we shall see many cases
in which American officials talk themselves into tolerating Russian
deception since, after all, "they're only Russians" and we need to get used
to it. The lamentable consequences of this attitude will soon be all too
apparent in subsequent chapters.
See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.
Mary Pegg
>>>> I was talking about manned craft.
>>>
>>> So was Brian. Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence may not be men, but the
>>> rest of the STS-114 crew would likely object to your statement.
>>
>> Get thee to a dictionary. "Manned" is not gender specific.
>
> Get bent. It was a joke.
Shoulda known, I guess.
zonke...@yahoo.com
all that other stuff just get freaking over it.
Peace
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote
>
Yeah, But they got it! And your statement is such obvious sour grapes
that it's comical.
Do you blame Gary Powers for letting himself and his plane be captured?
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Does, did, the FAI even have a definition for an EVA at the time
of White's and other's subsequent spacewalks?
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote
>
>>They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
>>the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
>>in space at all. Really, who cares?
>
>
> Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
> space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
> subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:
>
All right, Yes the Russians lied. And the question of the launch site
is the subject of umpteed subsequent passages in your book. :)
>
> See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.
>
But I see nothing wrong with Atlases showing the correct location
for the town of Baikonur, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ANNOTATE IT AS THE
SITE OF THE SPACE PORT! and do properly annotate Tyura-Tam as the
site of the space port, and Leninsk as the site of the place where
the support people live.
You certainly don't want them to rename Tyura-Tam as Baikonur.
Also by the way, I was looking at a fairly large scale soviet map of
Ukraine with a recent immigrant friend, and he pointed out several
places where the locations of some military bases were shown at
false locations. So apparently it was a more common ruse.
>
>
>
>
Vladimir Makarenko
This is exactly what this guy is trying to do. Where from his agenda
comes - paranoia or tabloid money - I don't give a damn. But he
demonstrated over years a pattern of behavior which is very simple -
everything Soviets have done in space race either sucks or very bad.
Read shit he was writing few years ago here and there that "Mir" station
is a major danger to the world, while not letting a single word about
gambling of the "Shuttle" program. This is the real history: "Mir" was
designed and built so robust that it withstood major accidents including
collision and continued to function properly twice as long as it was
initially supposed. "Shuttle" - you know what kind of "gem" this junk
turned out to be. Waste of human lives and money. So do not tell me
about "rewritten" history - when such guys are trying write it there is
no need to rewrite, whatever Ministry of Truth will review it.
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" wrote:
>
> Vladimir Makarenko wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter what a big mouth you have it'll not accomodate my "malchik".
> > Get lost, pervert.
> >
> > VM.
> >
> Oh what a suggestion Vladi :)
> I'd say that certainly the perversion here is all yours.
Really? You see Rostyk, if somebody starts to talk to me trailer park
trash about "little boy", the person will get reply in the same
language.
> You should be ashamed making such an invitation.
My invitation to him was simple - "get lost".
VM.
Eric Chomko
: "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote
: > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
: > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
: > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
: You have trouble with English, malchik?
: It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
: practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
: tens of billions of dollars in response.
: It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
: Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
: space achievements. If I were a Russian, and
: somebody said, "Yeah, we know the Russians
: lie about stuff but we have to get used to it, they're
: only Russians, after all, they can't help themselves,"
: I'd be insulted. But that's only me.
: Maybe you're proud of getting away with so many lies?
: All I hoped to do was add an asterisk to the Soviet-era
: records documentation that some information in them
: was later found to be false.
You should rather try and find the killers of JFK. What I don't understand
is how we got the Russians touting, "Lee Harvey Oswald lone nut". Yes, the
US has managed to have the Russians telling US lies. Now THAT is a trick!
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
: > Mary Pegg wrote:
: >
: > > Jim Oberg wrote:
: > >
: > >
: > >>This topic came up in an earlier discussion, so here is a
: > >>section of my book, 'Star-Crossed Orbits', that tries
: > >>to put it into perspective:
: > >
: > >
: > > <snip>
: > >
: > > Interesting, but surely a bigger obstacle to the FAI recognising
: > > the claims is that Gagarin bailed out, and therefore did not
: > > complete the flight?
: >
: > Anything to get the butt fucking dumb American public off the glaring
: > NASA and administration technical incompetence ball, eh, Mary?
: >
: > That's fine with me, go ahead, give it your best shot. Make my day.
: >
: > Punk.
: >
: Thomas, I don't think you realize the inmportance of such things. As it
: stands, USA id just 1 Guinness world records ahead of the next
: competitiors: Germans. As the Germans plan 2 new world records planned
: in hte next month: one for eating the most sourkraut while singing
: "Deutschland, Deutschland, Ueber Alles!" and the other one for writing
: the most anti-Serb articles in a period of one week. USA has just one
: planned: the record number of foreign journalists tortured by being
: made to eat the most number of huamburgers.
: If USA is to keep its coveted World leadership in the Guinnnes race,
: Soviet primacy in space travel have to be taken away and given to our
: good old Ameircan Wernher Von Braun. No, wait! Wernher and his team
: were also Germans!
: Unfortunately, after the death of Wernher Von Braun and his Nazi SS
: team, their blueprints for space travel have been lost because NASA
: doesn't have any transaltors from German.
: But USA still holds the most important space travel record for the
: greatest number of astronauts taken to space by the Russian Zoyuz
: craft.
: Moreover, I hear NASA is deadlocked with China and India in a race to
: be the first country other than Russia to be able to send a craft into
: space and be able to return it wihtout any major explosions. I hear
: NASA is planning to spend many $billions on this noble task. Although
: this can be solved much more cheaply by hiring a German translator...
Ich bin ein Berliner!
Where do I sign up?
Vladimir Makarenko
Have you got "preparation H" ? How date with Bill O'Reily went?
VM.
Eric Chomko
: Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
: > "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
: > >
: > > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
: > > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
: > > Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
: > >
: > >
: >
: > So now they are last in space.
: >
: Ironic, isn't it? When the Rusisans first went into Space, we all
: thought that just 10 years later, at least 10 ohter coutries would be
: in Space.
: And surely, just a few years later the USA was the second country in
: Space.
: But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
: country has joined these two, but one of these two - USA - lost all of
: its knowledge as how to safely return spacecraft to Earth.
HAving a brief hiatus of shuttle flights doesn't mean we've forgotten.
: So, now Russia is once again the only Space country. The last one in
: space, as you put it so well. And if some American astronauts want to
: see what the Earth looks like from the ooutside, NASA has to beg Rusisa
: to take them there on hteir Soyuz craft.
Ha, but the US space memorabilia still outsells the Russia space stuff two
to one on eBay. So there!
: What Nazi SS secret died with Von Braun's death? Can't we somehow
: recover it? Does NASA have any German translators?
: Moreover, for almost 10 years, all Russian space and nuclear secrets
: were open to the CIA. How come CIA did such a lousy job putting them to
: use? Is the problem the same as with Von Braun's legacy: no Russian
: translators?
No, but in both cases its money.
Eric
Vladimir Makarenko
Jim Oberg wrote:
>
crap cut...
>
> See http://www.jamesoberg.com/orbits.html for more info on the book.
So - it is all about selling the book, hah?
VM.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Value judgements that you don't agree with is different from
intentional misstatement of facts (i.e. lies).
Eric Chomko
: Sander Vesik wrote:
: >>Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
: >>
: >>Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
: >>died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
: >>gracious enough to arrange for their burial.
: >
: >
: > The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
: > sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
: > on Kurds...
: Actually, Iraqi Kurdistan is one of the friendliest places to Americans
: on the planet about now.
And you'll prove it by going there right now?
Eric Chomko
: Sander Vesik wrote:
: >>>As in weapons of mass destruction?
: >>
: >>
: >>Hey Thomas,
: >>
: >>Why don't you ask the Kurds about those weapons of mass destruction?
: >>
: >>Or are all those dead in shallow graves liars too? Perhaps they all just
: >>died simultaneously of heart attacks, and the Republican Guard was just
: >>gracious enough to arrange for their burial.
: >
: >
: > The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
: > sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
: > on Kurds...
: I've heard they are pretty disgusted with the US still, as we speak.
: Saddam was a petty dictator, the only reason he was able to amass a
: large army is that he had lots of oil and help from weapons producers.
: Who are these weapons producers, and why aren't they building hydrogen
: powered SSTOs and RLVs, I ask.
More money in surface to surface and air to surfce missiles right now.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: Brian Thorn wrote:
: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 19:25:15 -0400, Vladimir Makarenko
: > <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote:
: >
: >
: >>>If the details are so unimportant, ask yourself why did the Soviets
: >>>lie about them in 1961?
: >
: >
: >>You mean they had to disclose every single thing about superiority they
: >>had including design details of their spacecrafts and their flights?
: >
: >
: > Well, that the spacecraft wasn't safe for the cosmonaut to land in...
: > that's a pretty important detail. Nevermind that, per the aviation
: > rules of the time (which the Soviets publicly supported) bailing out
: > of an aircraft or spacecraft negated the flight.
: Not really when Soviet shot down U2 and the pilot bailed out - that fact
: didn't negate the spy flight which of course was against international
: rules which the US in the time publicly supported.
I spoke with a guy that felt that Powers should have went down with his
plane. Said guy's father worked for the CIA at the time.
I also know Powers' son, runs a Cold War history museum, who was born
after the incident and obviously disagree with guy number 1 (CIA man's
son).
: >>They said more than enough. All that crap that they "lied" is just
: >>another loser whining.
: >
: >
: > Nonsense. The only one whining around here is you. The rest of us have
: > acknowledged that Gagarin was heroic and the first man to travel in
: > space.
: Switch from "I" to "we" is always very symptomatic. It doesn't work
: though. Better try to cut your crap.
: >
: >
: >>And btw, - recently US Airforce took out of US National Archives
: >>thousands of documents including those dated by fifties.
: >
: >
: > Reference?
: E.g. NYT of 04/19/2006 - i.e. today:
: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19weds4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
: Now read and continue to bitch how Soviets won space race.
Won? By never leaving LEO in a manned spacecraft?
Eric
: VM.
: >
: > Brian
Eric Chomko
: cfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
: > This is called 'hypocracy'. (Look it up.)
: "a government characterized by hypocrisy" - is that what you meant?
I was going to do that. You did it more elegantly than I would have. :)
It was the "look it up" part that got my attention, as the poster
obviously hadn't. But I digress...
Eric
Eric Chomko
: "Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote
: > They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
: > the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
: > in space at all. Really, who cares?
: Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
: space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
: subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:
: [I]t is reasonable to question the importance of a 1961 fraud in 2001.
: That is, is there anybody out there who doesn't already know that the
: official Soviet location for the cosmodrome is false? Why bother with an
: official correction?
: A compelling reason is that the original deception persists through sheer
: informational inertia. Even a cursory survey of existing cartographic
: products shows this. For example, recent world globes from Replogle (such as
: the WORLD HORIZON "Livingston Illuminated" globe) and a World News Map
: published by "U.S. News and World Report" show the town of Baykonur in its
: correct location . But I would argue that nobody looks up Baykonur out of
: interest in obscure coal-mining towns (in population and genuine importance
: it's much too minor a spot to earn its own place on these maps), but only
: out of a desire to find out where the famous cosmodrome of the same name is
: located. If so, they are misled, since it is the "false Baykonur".
: So I play this game whenever I visit book stores, and you can play too.
Funny I do that with American history books that discuss the JFK
assassination. Official line, 'Oswald lone nut' or the truth,
'conspiracy'.
Eric
: Check out the latest world atlases to see if they have the cosmodrome at the
Eric Chomko
: Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
As stated in an earlier post, some felt he should have gone down with the
plane.
Eric
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <4447F194...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>):
>> ...and it doesn't negate the Soviets from going into the "stupid idiots"
>> record book when they had to fire 14 SAMs to get the U2 and they also shot
>> down one of their own chase MIGs in the process.
>
> Have you got "preparation H" ? How date with Bill O'Reily went?
>
> VM.
Gah, what a freaking apologist. Screw off you pseudo-Soviet troll.
<PLONK>
--
Herb
"Everything is controlled by a small evil group to which,
unfortunately, no one we know belongs."
~Anonymous
cfl...@hotmail.com
need to catch a housemate before he leaves in ten minutes. I knew that
looked wrong when I typed it, but when I changed it, THAT didn't look
right either. And spell-checkers are the work of Satan, you know. In
direct answer to Mary; although the Soviets were EXACTLY that (a
government ...) and much more so than is usual for modern governments,
I think what I said fits my point a bit better.
Jim's comment about the EVAs reminds me of a point that I think he has
raised before- that the Soviets' claim that they had NO problems with
Leonov's EVA let NASA planners to believe that EVAs would be a
cakewalk, and ended up spending several missions learning what the
Soviets already knew.
And once again, if the situation was reversed and it had been the
Americans who lied about the launch site or Shepherd had bailed out of
his capsule, the Soviets would have been the FIRST to point out the
violation and demand that the record not be allowed.
Jim Oberg
"Eric Chomko" <echom...@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote
> Funny I do that with American history books that discuss the JFK
> assassination. Official line, 'Oswald lone nut' or the truth,
> 'conspiracy'.
wrong newsgroup, post this over at
alt.drooling.whackos, please.
Jim Oberg
"Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote
> Really? You see Rostyk, if somebody starts to talk to me trailer park
> trash about "little boy", the person will get reply in the same language.
If 'malchik' is your idea of 'trash talk', you've led a very protected life,
and I am not the one to violate it -- so I apologize, starik.
Vladimir Makarenko
Ask him - I never claimed that; the guy insists that Soviets did and
whines about that.
Who is LEO?
VM.
>
> Eric
>
> : VM.
>
> : >
> : > Brian
Jim Oberg
as both sides talking past each other towards each one's misinterpretations
of the other's realities. Because that may be going on here, on a small
scale --
each of us angry at what we have come to THINK is the other's point of view.
I'm beginning to suspect that I pegged you wrong, and I would certainly
argue that you've pegged ME wrong, and I beg an opportunity to
attempt to change what I think is an unjust characterization.
"Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote
vkar...@yahoo.com
I am not sure. I can tell you where to sign up if you were not a
Berliner but, say, a Frankfurter, a Wiener or a Hamburger though... :-)
We'll even allow you to hire an assistant. A hamburger helper, so to
speak.
Cheers!
vkar...@yahoo.com
Some Americans just don't realize the honor and pleasure of committing
suicide in order to keep their deceitful bosses from getting exposed as
such. Not enough Japanese- or German-style discipline here. Not enough
true patriotism. Not the kind of people you can successfully rape Iraq,
Iran, Venezuella and Belarus with. The future is bleak...
cfl...@hotmail.com
vkar...@yahoo.com
> "Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote
> > They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> > the launch site. Which is firmly fastened to earth and not
> > in space at all. Really, who cares?
>
> Aside from the fact that they DID lie about some aspects of their
> space achievements, the question of the launch site was actually the
> subject of the subsequent passages in my book. Here they are:
>
> [I]t is reasonable to question the importance of a 1961 fraud in 2001.
> That is, is there anybody out there who doesn't already know that the
> official Soviet location for the cosmodrome is false? Why bother with an
> official correction?
>
> A compelling reason is that the original deception persists through sheer
> informational inertia. Even a cursory survey of existing cartographic
> products shows this. For example, recent world globes from Replogle (such as
> the WORLD HORIZON "Livingston Illuminated" globe) and a World News Map
> published by "U.S. News and World Report" show the town of Baykonur in its
> correct location . But I would argue that nobody looks up Baykonur out of
> interest in obscure coal-mining towns (in population and genuine importance
> it's much too minor a spot to earn its own place on these maps), but only
> out of a desire to find out where the famous cosmodrome of the same name is
> located. If so, they are misled, since it is the "false Baykonur".
>
> So I play this game whenever I visit book stores, and you can play too.
Jim, I am not sure if you are capable of understanding what human
beings write to you, but I will try.
Yes, of course, the Soviets did everything possible and impossible to
hide their military installations from the enemies. So did Americans,
but the Soviets were especially preoccupied with that. To the point
that Soviet people were told not to take their local street maps
literarily when driving, because the Soviets maps purposefully twisted
those maps in order to "confuse foreign invaders".
With Baikonur, in particular, such efforts were particularly elaborate
because Baykonur was the flagman of Soviet rocket- and thus
missile-building. Every Soviet child knew that its location was
completely secret from them and that its position on maps was purely
symbolic.
But why do you insist on calling such traditional military as "fraud",
"historical falsification", "lying", etc? Did USA publicize the
location of its secret nuclear labs like that in Los Alamos? If they
did - was the person, who did such stupidity, court-martialed for
treason?
You claim to have written a book on your perception of the Soviet space
program. My neighbor's grandma also wrote such a book. You two should
compare notes.
But before you publish your books, you should familiarize yourselves
with some basics. For example, watch a very interesting recent Russian
series of documentaries that details all kinds of things about the
early Soviet space program. It has a big chapter on the way Khrushchev
tried to deceive the CIA with Baikonur's location. As I recall, he even
went so far that in order to hide the great mass of trains and people
going to Baikonur, he declared a national program of "tselina",
pretending that all those trains were going to new agricultural lands.
You and the grandma should watch these Russian documentaries and read
Russian historical books on this subject, and then just copy them and
publish them under your own names. This may be dishonest but at least
the publishers won't laugh in your face at the ignorance and stupidity
of your own current books.
Nor do I understand such your sentences as "The same attitude has
persisted all the way into the current day. Throughout this book, we
shall see many cases in which American officials talk themselves into
tolerating Russian deception". What do you mean by "tolerating
deception"? CIA was deceiving KGB. KGB was deceiving CIA. CIA knew
that KGB was deceiving them. KGB knew that CIA was deceiving them. CIA
knew that KGB knew that CIA was deceiving them. KGB knew that CIA knew
that KGB knew that CIA was deceiving them, etc.
What does "tolerating" have to do with this? That's what all
intelligence agencies do to each other: deceive each other and see
through the other guy's deception.
You should go to Wikipedia to read up some basic materials on KGB and
CIA.
All these intelligence game aren't frauds or lies. They are legitimate
military intelligence tactics.
Lies are something completely different. Lies is not when you deceive
your enemy spies and your enemy military. Lies are when you deceive
your own civilians and civilians from other countries.
BTW, the Soviets were good at that too, but such lying virtually
stopped with the coming to power of a great man named Gorbachev in
1985-86 and with Russia later becoming a capitalist democracy in 1992.
This is not to say that being a capitalist democracy guarantees a
country from becoming a notorious liar, despised by the whole World.
But what does Russia have to do with this? You wrote:
>
>Throughout this book, we shall see many cases
> in which American officials talk themselves into tolerating Russian
> deception since, after all, "they're only Russians" and we need to get used
> to it.
>
Saying that "American officials tolerate Russian deception" is like
saying that "Hitler tolerated Russian mistreatment of Jews in 1940s".
Russians didn't mistreat Jews in 1940s. Hitler did.
Same here. Russian officials never tell any obvious lies. It is USA
that has made lying and fraud such a paramount component of their
foreign policy. Sure, Goebbels and Soviets did lie a lot, but it really
took the American media and politicians to tell lies that are so
obvious.
At first, the US media and government felt that they were committing
fraud and lies just trying to compete against their enemies; Nazis and
Soviets. But after those two ideologies disappeared, US propaganda
machine lost all the challenge and became so obvious that it makes the
rest of the World shake with laughter.
At first, US government was just doing what Goebbels had taught them.
For example, Hitler started the notorious Reichstag fire in order to
blame Communists and Socialists for it and use this as a pretext to ban
rival parties and democratic elections. Next, he started WWII by
dressing some German soldiers in Polish uniforms, killing them, and
then calling journalists to show them how "Poland had attacked Germany
first".
Similarly, USA faked a second Tonkin attack in order to fool the
American public into approving the Viet Nam war, which later devastated
the very foundations of American society.
Similar kind of lies were used to invade Grenada and especially Panama,
whose legitimate president had to be removed and kidnapped in order to
prevent him from going public on the CIA role in the international drug
trading business.
New heights of deception were reached 1990s, when USA and Germany set
their eyes on destroying and re-balkanizing the Balkans, whose unity
under Marshal Tito posed a geopolitical threat. The
"divide-and-conquer" principles mandated that Yugoslavia simply has to
be partitioned into tiny principalities, all hating and fighting each
other, ripe for USA control and occupation. A campaign of
misinformation was launched all over the West, in which the Serbs were
portrayed as sole perpetrators, while Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians
were innocent victims. Numerous fake "slaughters" and "market
explosions" were planted and blamed on Serbs. Every time some 200
Bosnians lost their homes, this was blared on the front pages of all
Western newspapers, while the most horrible genocide in the modern
Balkan history - the ethnic cleansing against 400,000 Serb civilians in
Krajina, Croatia - was purposefully and willfully not reported by
Western media.
Things got even worse in Kosovo, where the genocidal Islamic extremists
form KLA were portrayed as "innocent victims" of Yugoslav police. CIA
went so far as to stage the notorious Racak "massacre", in which KLA
and CIA gathered fighters, slain in the fighting between KLA and the
government forces, into one place and declared that these were
"innocent civilians executed on that spot by Serb genocidists". Afraid
that the international commission would quickly expose this fraud, USA
hurried up, declared Serbs guilty of a massacre without a trial, and
used Racak as a pretext to commit a naked aggression against
Yugoslavia, China and against the international law.
After the Serbs surrendered, NATO took control over Kosovo, leading to
genocide against 200,000 ethnic Serbs and 100,000 Gypsies at the hands
of KLA. Again, this horrible genocide was virtually unreported for a
long time, despite the cries of desperation coming form the
international Gypsy and Serb community, who were being treated by
KLA/NATO almost as brutally as the German Nazi treated them during the
Gypsy Holocaust of WWII.
And this wasn't military deception tactics like the ones the Soviets
used to confuse the CIA as to the real location f Baikonur. These were
lies and fraud aimed at deceiving America's and Europe's own public.
But at least there was some level of ingenuity to these frauds in
Clinton times. At least the public didn't know the truth and couldn't
always see that it was being lied to. With the coming of Bush, it
decided that it's OK if the listener knows that he is being lied to.
>From a sophisticated propaganda and disinformation machine, USA has
turned into a cheap compulsive liar that takes pride in the fact that
all of its listeners saw the lies.
Goebbels said that the bigger and more outrageous the lie is, the more
the public will believe it. But even Goebbels didn't expect the extent
to which the US government took this Nazi idea. The notorious speech,
that the US Secretary Powell was forced by his bosses to make at the UN
in order to "justify' the aggression against Iraq, is a perfect
document for study by the scholars of American government lies.
Since you like to write books on subjects that you know nothing about,
it may be a good idea for you to count the number of lies in that
speech and to publish a book to list and explain all of them. For
example, how many obvious lies are contained in that speech? More than
1,000? More than 10,000?
And I am not talking about the subtle lies like those about WMDs. I am
talking about the eye-popping eyes about the "Saddam-Al Qaeda"
connection. The lies that made the 3 billion or so people, listening to
that speech, exclaim again and again: 'Did he REALLY say that?!!!!!"
I don't have time to discuss that speech in its entirety (as I said,
you should write a book) but here is a re-post of my older article
discussing just one millionth part of the of the amazing impudent lies
contained in that masterpiece of a speech. Here is that article:
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.islam/msg/3e406323399a42a7?dmode=source
From: vkarla...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.islam,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.spain,soc.culture.italian,soc.culture.russian
Subject: Re: How the WMD's were moved out of Iraq
Date: 17 Mar 2006 16:28:47 -0800
thereactionary wrote:
> vkarla...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > thereactionary wrote:
> Again you are a liar. Saddam murdered over 300,000 of his own people.
Didn't most of these 300,000 alleged and (yet-unproven!) murders happen
during the Iraq-Iran war, in which the USA was the staunch supporter
and sponsor of Saddam and cheered all his actions? As in ((from now
on, I am just quoting the first results that my google search
produces):
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1265520,00.html
"The estimate of 300,000 Iraqis killed by the Ba'athists also includes
deaths for which the western powers arguably bear some responsibility.
According to the US state department, most of the graves discovered to
date correspond to five major atrocities committed by the Saddam
Hussein regime: the 1983 attack against Kurds of the Barzani tribe; the
1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, for which estimates of the
numbers killed vary from 50,000 to 180,000; chemical attacks against
Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988; ... Saddam's brutal attacks on the
Kurds in the 1980s occurred as part of the Iran-Iraq war, during which
the Reagan administration supported and armed his regime. When that war
ended in 1988 Saddam sought to consolidate his rule at home; in the
Anfal campaign he sent forces to quell the Kurdish uprising in the
north (supported by the Iranians), again with US consent."
/////////////////////////////////
So, another US puppet is being a genocidist. What else is new?
That's how USA operates: it creates and sponsors genocidal monsters all
over the World and then gets really surprised and upset when these
monsters turn against their own creator. Doesn't anybody in the US
government know the story of Dr. Frankenstein?
Even Bin Laden himself was originally created, trained and funded by
the CIA for the purpose of terrorizing and murdering Russians in
Afghanistan. As in:
/////////////////////////////////
http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp
BIN LADEN'S BEGINNINGS
As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia
to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow's invasion in
1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as the MAK
which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the
Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify is that the MAK was
nurtured by Pakistan's state security services, the Inter-Services
Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit for conducting
the covert war against Moscow's occupation.
Yet the CIA ... found that Arab zealots who flocked to aid the Afghans
were easier to "read" than the rivalry-ridden natives. While the
Arab volunteers might well prove troublesome later, the agency
reasoned, they at least were one-dimensionally anti-Soviet for now. So
bin Laden, along with a small group of Islamic militants from Egypt,
Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps all over the
Middle East, became the "reliable" partners of the CIA in its war
against Moscow...
Most of these Afghan vets turned up later behind violent Islamic
movements around the world...
/////////////////////////////////
In the 1990s and 2000s, after USA fell out of love with Saddam, Al
Qaeda, which has been Saddam's worst enemy, was welcomed into lands
that USA had wrestled from Saddam. For example, when USA effectively
liberated Northern Iraq (Kurdistan) from Saddam after the first Iraq
war and made it a no-fly zone for Saddam (so called "Northern No-Fly
Zone"), Al Qaeda was immediately invited by Kurds to establish
terrorist bases and chemical plants there in Ansar al-Islam. For
example:
/////////////////////////////////
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:y0ccYjhqVLYJ:www.back-to-iraq.com...
February 10, 2003
I went stumbling around Iraqi Kurdistan, the northern part of Iraq
outside Saddam's direct control....
The Ansar al-Islam enclave, according to Salih and American
intelligence officials, soon became the base of operations of an Al
Qaeda subgroup called Jund al-Shams... Jund al-Shams is controlled by a
man named Mussa'ab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi is believed by European
intelligence agencies to be Al Qaeda's main specialist in chemical and
biological terrorism...
American intelligence officials believe that Zarqawi was also among an
unknown number of Al Qaeda terrorists who have sought refuge in the
Ansar al-Islam over the past seventeen months.
/////////////////////////////////
and
/////////////////////////////////
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Kurdish connection
Zarqawi ... is believed to have fled to Iraq in 2001... US officials
argue that it was at al-Qaeda's behest that he moved to Iraq and
established links with Ansar al-Islam - a group of Kurdish Islamists
from the north of the country. He is thought to have remained with them
for a while - feeling at home in mountainous northern Iraq.
/////////////////////////////////
The American planes patrolled the Kurd airspace day and night in order
to protect their Kurd and Al Qaeda friends from their enemy Saddam.
>From the other side, Saddam other deadly enemy, Iranian ayatollahs,
were also helping Zarqawi. See: Americans, Zarqawi and Iranian bigots
found something in common: their hatred for Saddam.
Everywhere US goes, it brings its Al Qaeda friends along. Even long
after the 9-11 terror, USA's puppet regime of Pres. Shevardnadze in the
Rep. of Georgia arranged for Al Qaeda to bring huge amounts of a deadly
WMD (a potent poison called "ricin") into Georgia in order to poison
Russian civilians. Only when the Al Qaeda men were caught smuggling
ricin into France and England (to terrorize the Russian Embassy, as was
later discovered) did USA realise that Al Qaeda had double-crossed them
once again. As in:
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030120-40...
as
The al-Qaeda camps in Georgia's Pankisi Valley - which until a
Georgian security crackdown last year was a lawless haven of
guerrillas, drug dealers and kidnappers - specialize, says Jacquard,
in training recruits in the use of explosives and in basic chemical
terror, including the poisoning of water and food supplies... Material
evidence collected during the Romainville raids leaves little doubt
that the cell was planning an attack, French sources say. Subsequent
testimony indicated that the plot was to target the Russian Embassy in
Paris - to punish Russia for its poor treatment of the Chechens.
/////////////////////////////////
The most amazing thing is that USA then went to the UN and tried to
blame Saddam for the Al Qaeda camps and WMD plants in Georgia and
Kurdistan! That was the centerpiece of Powell's notorious UN speech
made to justify the invasion of Iraq. As in:
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
UN Speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell
February 05, 2003
"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially
much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist
network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and
modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network
headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama
bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.
When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped
establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this
camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp.
The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other
poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch--image a
pinch of salt--less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in
your food, would cause shock followed by circulatory failure. Death
comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote, there is no cure. It is
fatal.
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in
northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq.
As my colleagues around this table and as the citizens they represent
in Europe know, Zarqawi's terrorism is not confined to the Middle East.
Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against
countries, including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.
We also know that Zarqawi's colleagues have been active in the Pankisi
Gorge, Georgia and in Chechnya, Russia. The plotting to which they are
linked is not mere chatter. Members of Zarqawi's network say their goal
was to kill Russians with toxins. "
/////////////////////////////////
And why does Powell blame Saddam and not his own buddies Kurds and
Georgians for sponsoring Zarqawi? Here is the only concrete and
semi-verifiable "damning evidence" against Saddam:
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
"Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north
east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment,
staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to
fight another day."
/////////////////////////////////
This monster Zarqawi has been living and working for years with
America's best friends Kurds in 'northeast Iraq", but because he
stayed in a Baghdad hospital for 2 months in order to receive medical
treatment (because Kurd extremists don't have too many doctors),
Powell blames Saddam and not Kurds or Georgians! And instead of
invading and bombing fellow Georgia and Kurdistan, USA invaded Saddam's
part of Iraq! Just because Iraqi doctors upheld their oath and
allegedly gave medical treatment to Al Zarqawi!
Powell even dares to say: "We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring
Zarqawi and his subordinates."
Formally, this is indeed true. Indeed "Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and
his subordinates". But not Saddam's Iraq. Kurdish part of Iraq, Mr.
Secretary! You own best friends and allies!
Why do you think we are too stupid to notice?
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
"Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of
Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not
credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them
earlier."
/////////////////////////////////
The only Zarqawi activity in Baghdad that you have described to us, Mr.
Secretary, was how he received medical treatment in Baghdad for two
months. So indeed, while Zarqawi was in some hospital, some Iraqi
doctors were aware of his whereabouts at that time. But he has long
since recovered and returned to Kurdistan. How can Saddam know
Zarqawi's whereabouts in Kurdistan, Mr. Powell? Only you and your Kurd
friends know exactly where Zarqawi is. Give CIA a call and ask them
where exactly they send the food, clothes and the chemicals for
Zarqawi's ricin manufacturing plant in Ansar al-Islam, Kurdistan.
Reader may ask: "there must have been more evidence in Powell's speech
than that about Saddam's and Al Qaeda' sinister plot to terrorize the
World? Oh sure there was. For example:
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in
Sudan, an Al Qaida source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an
understanding that Al Qaida would no longer support activities against
Baghdad.
/////////////////////////////////
Yes, friends, Baghdad and Al Qaeda were so in love with each other that
Al Qaida used to conduct terrorist activities against Baghdad. That's
how much they were in love!
And then Saddam convinced Al Qaeda to no longer terrorize Baghdad. How
dare he!!!!! The fact that Al Qaeda and Baghdad reached a cease-fire
agreement and Al Qaeda stopped terrorizing Baghdad proves that Al Qaeda
and Baghdad have always been best friends and allies.
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.stuffiveheard.com/archives/speeches/
Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say
Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and Al Qaida's religious tyranny do
not mix. I am not comforted by this thought.
/////////////////////////////////
Tell us, honorable US Secretary of State, Sir, what thoughts ARE you
"comforted by"? Thoughts that your boss has just asked you to
impudently lie in the most widely seen, read, and listened speech in
World history? Aren't you ashamed of this Goebbels-like demagoguery and
prevarication? Of course you are! Rumor has it that you later resigned
specifically because you had been forced by our fearless and honorable
leader Dick "I usually don't shoot while drunk" Cheney into
making a lying cheating a**hole of yourself in front of 6 billion
people all over the World.
In fact, embarrassed by this impudent lying about Al Qaeda and Baghdad
"ricin connection", the right-wing establishment later had to invent
the story that, even though Zarqawi was indeed living and busily
working among America's allies in Kurdistan and Georgia, Powell had
also lied about the existence of ricin itself. Here is what the famous
right-wing Jamestown Foundation now says about this lying:
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369023
"In the buildup to the Iraqi war in early 2003, dozens of North
Africans (mainly Algerians) were arrested in Britain, France and Spain
on charges of preparing ricin and other chemical weapons. Colin Powell
and others trumpeted the arrests as proof of the threat posed by the
Zarqawi-Chechen-Pankisi ricin network (which had now been expanded to
include the Ansar al-Islam of Kurdish northern Iraq).
French and British security officials were astounded by Powell's
insistence on February 12, 2003, that "the ricin that is bouncing
around Europe now originated in Iraq." With the Iraq invasion only
weeks away, the source of the ricin threat moved from Georgia to Iraq.
/////////////////////////////////
Even the most right-wing zealots make fun of Powell's speech. Yes,
fiends, let's rejoice in the honor and respect for America that our
Government evokes in people all over the World with such impudent and
obvious lies!
Amazing impudence. Amazing belief that average people are so dumb that
they will swallow any insult to human logic that the US government
shoves down their open throats.
Google has produced some 90,000 results for my searches on this
subject. Do you think I have been biasedly quoting only the mainstream
and the right wing? Here is one from the left wing:
/////////////////////////////////
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=A1333_0_1_0_C
Northern Iraq was Zarqawi's stomping ground pre-invasion, as his gang,
which has close ties to Ansar al-Islam, was based in the Northern
No-Fly zone. Both Ansar al-Islam and Zarqawi flourished in northern
Iraq where they were protected from Saddam Hussein's regime by the US
and Britain.
/////////////////////////////////
And more from mainstream:
/////////////////////////////////
USA TODAY, February 6, 2003
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell put Ansar and its base
here at the heart of the White House's case that al-Qaeda and Saddam
are connected. He said the link runs through Abu Musab Zarqawi, a bin
Laden lieutenant whom U.S. officials say Saddam is harboring. Zarqawi's
"network" is testing ricin and other poisons at an Ansarcamp here,
Powell said... The group's stronghold is in a hard-to-reach area along
the border with Iran in a pocket that, until 2001, was overseen by a
fledgling Kurdish administration... Powell acknowledged that Ansar's
base is in a part of Iraq that has been outside Saddam's control since
a Kurdish uprising in 1991.
/////////////////////////////////
Yes, Powell did sort of mention that Zarqawi's operations was out of
Saddam's control. But then he decided to blame Saddam for it anyway.
And he used this argument as "the heart of the White House's case that
al-Qaeda and Saddam are connected"!
Why? Because, according to Powell, he is "not comforted by" the fact
that Saddam has nothing to do with Zarqawi.
You see, truth doesn't comfort American leaders. Truth doesn't allow
them to do what Exxon wants them to do. Lies, libel, slander,
falsifications - that's what comforts them.
Impudent lies is what comforts American politicians and allows them to
get re-elected with the campaign contributions from Exxon and Lockheed,
which in turn steal this money from the average American taxpayers to
the tune of $250 billion just for Iraq alone. And thousands of
American boys are dying in the faraway god-forsaken hellhole called
"Iraq", where the entire population consists of Al Qaeda-loving
genocidal Shiites and Kurds, and Saddam-loving genocidal Sunnis!
And the TV-boob idiots believe that all this lying and dying and $250
billion waste is done not for the sake of making an extra $billion or
two for Exxon, but for only one purpose: to "bring love, tolerance,
brotherhood, peace, truth, honor, democracy and freedom to the Iraqi
people", who love them oh so much.
Fine. I can believe that Iraqis love truth more than you and your
bosses do, Mr. Powell. Pathological liars love truth more than you do.
But peace, brotherhood, tolerance and democracy?! The Iraqis love love
(pun intended), peace, brotherhood, and tolerance so much that they
will commit mutual genocide and fratricide in their name at the drop of
the hat.
Let me finish this Festival of Lies and Laughs by giving you a
hilarious Freudian example of what idiots our Government takes American
voters and taxpayers for. Here is what our Attorney General told the
American people last month (with a straight face!), when asked by
people's representatives why the Administration is so fond of illegal
spying on its own people:
/////////////////////////////////
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=1609248
US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, testifying to Senate:
" I, I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President
Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt
have all authorized electronic surveillance of an enemy on a far
broader scale."
/////////////////////////////////
Ain't it coll?
I wonder how "Honest Abe" Lincoln and George "I cannot tell a lie"
Washington would react if they heard what our Attorney General said
about them; and how fast they were spinning in their graves during
Powell's speech. I bet our modern government officials send Washington,
Jefferson and Lincoln spinning so fast, that we can tie electric
generators to them and solve all our energy problems.
And you call Russians "liars" for hiding the actual locations of their
top-secret instalations?! Wow....
vkar...@yahoo.com
Jim Oberg wrote:
> "Sander Vesik" <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote
> > The Kurds would probably tel lhim that they are disgusted that the US
> > sold Saddam chemical weapon agents and components which were then used
> > on Kurds...
>
>
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1265520,00.html
"The estimate of 300,000 Iraqis killed by the Ba'athists also includes
deaths for which the western powers arguably bear some responsibility.
According to the US state department, most of the graves discovered to
date correspond to five major atrocities committed by the Saddam
Hussein regime: the 1983 attack against Kurds of the Barzani tribe; the
1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, for which estimates of the
numbers killed vary from 50,000 to 180,000; chemical attacks against
Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988; ... Saddam's brutal attacks on the
Kurds in the 1980s occurred as part of the Iran-Iraq war, during which
the Reagan administration supported and armed his regime. When that war
ended in 1988 Saddam sought to consolidate his rule at home; in the
Anfal campaign he sent forces to quell the Kurdish uprising in the
north (supported by the Iranians), again with US consent."
>
> can't you guys break the chain of telling lies to each other?
>
Scott Hedrick
"Volker Hetzer" <volker...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:ovKdndzCdKQaodrZ...@giganews.com...
>>> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
>>> Get over it. Go buy yourself video game or something.
>>
>> You have trouble with English, malchik?
>>
>> It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
>> practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
>> tens of billions of dollars in response.
>>
>> It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
>> Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
>> space achievements.
> the launch site
Also the method of landing, which was *specifically* forbidden under the
rules.
*That* is the point- the Soviets knowingly *did not* follow the rules, which
*required* that Gagarin land *inside the spaceship*. He did not. Thus, under
the rules, he is not the first man to orbit the earth.
I'm not particularly interested in changing the record, because what he did
was daring enough. Nevertheless, anyone interested in the truth should be
willing to accept the *fact* that Gagarin cheated.
Scott Hedrick
"Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" <JustCa...@CommiesAreYourFriends.org> wrote in
message news:GFI1g.188$lA....@fe10.lga...
>
> "captain." <spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
> news:5nI1g.3221$fL.2927@edtnps90...
>>
>> <vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1145485594.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> But then things went weird. Now, 45 years later, not only no other
>>> country has joined these two, but one of these two -
>>
>>
>
> Boring. It may be a big event for China, but not for the world.
What, is lying inbred to Russians? Why not simply accept that "vkarlamov"
was wrong?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
> Ask him - I never claimed that; the guy insists that Soviets did and
> whines about that.
>
> Who is LEO?
You know, before makin as ass of yourself in sci.space.history, you might
want to learn a few of the terms involved.
I'll give you a hint, LEO is not a who.
>
> VM.
>
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > : VM.
> >
> > : >
> > : > Brian
vkar...@yahoo.com
DK wrote:
> career out of lying about Russian space program. He has no intention to
> understand you and every intention to distort things any way possible
> in order to present anything Russian in negative light. You are wasting
> your time.
>
Really? Can't be! I would have never guessed! :-)
Is he related to Brookski by any chance?
But Brookski and Jim are making a valid point: the Soviets have lied on
many occasions:
They willfully misinformed the US Air Force as to the actual location
of the Baikonur rocket cemter and the number of nuclear bombs that the
US Air Force needed to drop on it in order to destroy it.
They repeatedly lied to Hitler as to the location of Stalin's bunker,
making our German friends waste precious resources bombing the wrong
place.
This proves that Russians are liars. You can never trust them when they
tell you where to bomb them. This is infuriating and intolerable.
Isn't it part of the UN Human Rights Charter that all countries must
reveal to the US government the exact places for US military to invade
and/or to bomb?
vkar...@yahoo.com
Could you please remind us the record categories that existed at the
time of Gagarin's flight?
For example, how exactly was "orbiting the earth defined" in the FAI
and Guinness record books in their 1960 or 1961 editions? And how was
the *inside the spaceship* concept defined in those books?
I know it will come as a shock to you, but rockets dropped all their
engines early in their flight. Thus, it was impossible for rockets to
land in the same shape that they took off in. So, how much of the
original spacecraft did FAI or Guinness require to land with the
cosmonaut? At least a thousand pounds? At least ten pounds? I am sure
that between Gagarin himself, his spacesuit and his parachute, he had
at least 1000 pounds of the original spaceship content with him when he
landed. Was this not enough to for the FAI recordbook? Should he have
taken his grammaphone and his lazyboy chair with him?
Or is the problem that a spacesuit and a parachute weren't enough for
FAI? Did they require that another container, to be called "a capsule",
had to go over the spacesuit in order for the landing to qualify as an
"orbit"? But I was told that Gagarin had a double-lined spacesuit, so
that the outer lining can be called "a capsule". That makes it kosher,
doesn't it? :-)
Sarcasm apart, I am 99% sure that there was no such FAI requirement
concerning the landed poundage or the number of layers needed to break
the "orbit the earth" record, and that you guys just invented all this
crap out of your severe inferiority complex towards Russian science.
What's the freudian term for it? "Korolev envy" or "Gagarin envy"?
Jim Oberg
<vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,1265520,00.html
Right, we know how even-handed they are.
US arms supplies to Iraq were single-digits percentagewise and
did not involve chemicals. Not taking action to stop atrocities
is hardly tantamount to approval and encouragement -- heck,
when we DID take actions three years ago to stop Saddam's
atrocities (saving hundreds of thousands of lives -- far fewer
have died, thanks to the war), we get dinged for THAT too.
It's fun to watch twisters find justification to whine about
either/or choices where ready-made condemnations will fit
BOTH possible choices, viz., Darfur (where it really IS about
oil, but Chinese and French owned oil).
vkar...@yahoo.com
Volker Hetzer wrote:
> Jim Oberg wrote:
> > "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote
>
> >> Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> >> terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> >
> > You have trouble with English, malchik?
> >
> > It's great the Soviets were first in space -- it was the only
> > practical method of goosing the US gummint to spend
> > tens of billions of dollars in response.
> >
> > It's NOT great that people are so tolerant of
> > Soviet lies -- that's L-I-E-S -- about their
> > space achievements.
>
> They didn't lie about their space achievements, just about
> in space at all. Really, who cares?
>
Lots of people do! How could the US Air Force hit this launch site if
the Russians lied to them about its location? This made it much more
difficult for the US to compete against the Russian space program.
Russians just don't play by the American book. Most Russian scientists
even refused to wear simple glow-in-the-dark suits with bull's eye
targets drawn on them. Such sneaky liars!
vkar...@yahoo.com
Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov wrote:
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:444689E5...@popmail.med.nyu.edu...
> >
> > Jesus, man - it's already half a century and you still cannot come to
> > terms with a simple fact that Soviets were first in space.
> >
> > VM.
> >
>
> So now they are last in space.
>
> Don't feel bad though, lots of Euros are sitting around talking about the
> good ol' days. Think about all the Spaniards that are dreaming of the days
> when they were beating up defenseless indigenous peoples in the Americas. I
> could go on but you get the picture.
>
I am with you on this, Brookski. Americans just don't get the respect
or credit they deserve!
First, the Soviets claim that the first man in space was a Russian!
Now hte Spanish claim that their primacy in the extermination of the
"defenseless indigenous peoples in the Americas".
OK<, maybe the first man in space was indeed a Russian, but those
Spaniards are just liars! Good old USA holds all the Guinness records
in the area of the extermination of the "defenseless indigenous
peoples in the Americas"! I read as many as 12 million native Americans
died in the US-made genocide. That means, that the US succeeded in
exterminating at least 95% of al Native Americans on US terrirtory,
whereas those hapless Spanairds have extemninated less than 50% of
theirs. US rules!
Jim Oberg
<vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote
lots of stuff -- most beyond the range of
space-interest groups.
But deception about Baykonur isn't the issue,
the Soviets don't have anything to regret in
trying to mask its location, as with Los Alamos --
the objection is with providing falsified information
to international groups, for proving a claim to
a world record that nobody had any intent of denying them.
Lying also helped in international propaganda campaigns, such
as 'peace in space' and the 'anti Star Wars' gimmicks -- all
the while, it was the Soviets alone who had an orbital
killer satellite, an orbital thermonuclear bomb delivery system,
a manned space station armed with a heavy cannon for
attacking approaching US satellites, a prototype 'laser battle station'
named Polyus-Skif for space-to-space combat -- all denied, all
covered up, all kept from the consciousness of marching morons
in the West who trusted the USSR never to build such weapons
because they promised not to.
That's what makes fibs about Baykonur and the Vostok flight fade
into insignificance.
And another think life tells us is that the most shrieky accusations
of 'liar-liar' are often from people who plan to lie, and if ever caught,
make the excuse it's only rejoinder to their 'true' accusations.
What we've gotten here are convoluted excuses that have evolved
from, first, 'nobody lied, it's essentially true,' to 'facts were changed to
preserve a bigger truth', to 'we had every right to lie,' and finally
to 'everybody lies and YOU do it worse.' Very well maneuvered, too.
As to Iraq and al Qaeda, "no-connection-no-sirree-bob!',
don't put all your anti-Bush eggs in that rotten basket,
the range of interrelationships is getting better
defined and documented every day....
Jim Oberg
"DK" <d...@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote
> Oberg is a professional russophobe. He's a failed engeneer who made
> career out of lying about Russian space program. He has no intention to
> understand you and every intention to distort things any way possible
> in order to present anything Russian in negative light. You are wasting
> your time.
Easy to say, hiding behind fake name and email address,
and far from the first such accusation. It's a badge of honor.
Jim Oberg
<vkar...@yahoo.com> wrote
> They willfully misinformed the US Air Force as to the actual location
> of the Baikonur rocket cemter and the number of nuclear bombs that the
> US Air Force needed to drop on it in order to destroy it.
Attempted silliness doesn't become you. The USAF always knew
where Tyura-Tam was, they just took awhile figuring out how to
spell it. Plesetsk, too. Sorry the original theme isn't worthy of you.
Vladimir Makarenko
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <maka...@popmail.med.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:4448026C...@popmail.med.nyu.edu...
>
>>Ask him - I never claimed that; the guy insists that Soviets did and
>>whines about that.
>>
>>Who is LEO?
>
>
> You know, before makin as ass of yourself in sci.space.history, you might
> want to learn a few of the terms involved.
Well, definitely in that case the honor of being an asshole belongs to
those like you becuase this thread was crossposted to
soc.culture.russian from sci.space.history. If you think that all
Russians were born with imprinted dictionary of space tech in their
brains - you watched too many cheap sci fi shows.
>
> I'll give you a hint, LEO is not a who.
>
It was already explained, without cheap posing as Big Brain by giving
lousy hint.
Take it back, try to sell on flea market.
VM.
VM.
>
>
>>VM.
>>
>>
>>>Eric
>>>
>>>: VM.
>>>
>>>: >
>>>: > Brian
>
>
>