Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
Suzanne
> On Aug 3, 7:06 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He had no crimes. A person is innocent until proven
> > guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
>
> This particular argument is extraordinarily weak and
> a pet peeve of mine.
>
> Specific accusations aside, within a formal system of
> governmental justice, there are clear and compelling
> reasons to hold individuals as innocent until proven
> guilty. It is absurd, however, to confuse this with a
> statement of fact.
>
> I see no reason for individuals to be required to hold
> that people are innocent until proven guilty until they
> are rendered into service in the formal justice system.
> Nor should my opinion be restricted to what a particular
> justice system should decide. Maintaining otherwise
> completely misses the principles on which "innocent
> until proven guilty" has been formulated.
>
> Wither or no Hitler was ever tried I think he was guilty
> of a fair number of rather obvious crimes. Examples of
> those not found guilty but of whom guilt is rather obvious
> could likewise be offered.
>
Guilt is not obvious in the case of WVB. He did not capture
people, and put them in concentration camps. He did not
create the concentration camps. He did not order the lack
of food and ill living conditions, Hitler did those things. He
did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
Hitler did that. It wasn't even until near the end of the war
that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that. It's also a fact
that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
forcing them to do. They even know that the woman was
a young woman who was a dental assistant that turned
them in. We know that when WVB and the team surrendered
to the Americans, that one man that was present said that
he seemed to act like WVB fancied himself as being some
kind of hero or statesman, and that he eagerly let himself
be photographed with individual Americans who wanted
his picture made with them. That was told to a writer who
wanted to report the event. But that man was telling what
he thought that someone is thinking, and he did not really
know what he was thinking of course and the man could
have read the moment wrong. But one thing is for sure,
if he had been in chains, the man would have told that
for sure, but he never said such a thing.
>
Another thing that is rather obvious to me whether or not
others have noticed it, is that if WVB was approving of
what Hitler was doing, the most obvious thing is what
Hitler did to the Jews. Yet in this country it was WVB that
stood up and was outspoken about how segregation was
wrong and how persecuting someone because of the
color of his skin is wrong. So you have to have concrete
proof that someone actually did what they are being
accused of before you can be reasonably sure that they
are guilty of something. I am not naive enough to believe
that someone is this totally innocent person just because
I think they smile pretty or can charm the ears off of a
mule. I'm basing my belief on the fact that I grew up in
San Antonio, Texas part of my childhood and there was
a man who was in a trial. He was convicted on what
some thought was good evidence, but not to a lot of
what the public saw in the supposed evidence. The
public mostly was against him being executed. When
it came time to do just that, the man on death row
pleaded, and begged and cried and was dragged
into the place where they would end his life. He said
"Please, please, I am innocent, please hear me, please
do not do this." But they executed him anyway. After the
man died, a short while later, another man came forth who
was overwhelmed with a guilty conscience and he said
that he was the one who was the real killer and that
the man they put to death really was innocent. I was
ten years old when that case made a profound influence
on me that a person should be considered innocent
until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's
what I believe and I believe it very strongly. It's a terrible
thing that the man who was innocent had to die, but I don't
think he died in vain because a lot of people after that
resolved to always uphold the idea that a person is
innocent until proved guilty.
>
I know that my opinion is strong, but I thank you also for
having the courage to speak up about what you believe,
too. I'm glad that we each can do that.
>
Regards,
Suzanne
Ye Old One
When you look at the evidence his guilt is clear.
> He did not capture
>people, and put them in concentration camps. He did not
>create the concentration camps. He did not order the lack
>of food and ill living conditions,
He could have done a lot to better them.
> Hitler did those things. He
>did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
>Hitler did that.
The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
> It wasn't even until near the end of the war
>that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
>rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.
WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
civilians.
> It's also a fact
>that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
>rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
>forcing them to do.
No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
believe that one snippet.
>They even know that the woman was
>a young woman who was a dental assistant that turned
>them in. We know that when WVB and the team surrendered
>to the Americans, that one man that was present said that
>he seemed to act like WVB fancied himself as being some
>kind of hero or statesman, and that he eagerly let himself
>be photographed with individual Americans who wanted
>his picture made with them. That was told to a writer who
>wanted to report the event. But that man was telling what
>he thought that someone is thinking, and he did not really
>know what he was thinking of course and the man could
>have read the moment wrong.
Could he? WvB was always a publicity seeker.
>But one thing is for sure,
>if he had been in chains, the man would have told that
>for sure, but he never said such a thing.
Abusing English again.
>>
>Another thing that is rather obvious to me whether or not
>others have noticed it, is that if WVB was approving of
>what Hitler was doing, the most obvious thing is what
>Hitler did to the Jews. Yet in this country it was WVB that
>stood up and was outspoken about how segregation was
>wrong and how persecuting someone because of the
>color of his skin is wrong.
Did he? So what?
>So you have to have concrete
>proof that someone actually did what they are being
>accused of before you can be reasonably sure that they
>are guilty of something.
That proof has been given.
> I am not naive enough to believe
>that someone is this totally innocent person just because
>I think they smile pretty or can charm the ears off of a
>mule. I'm basing my belief on the fact that I grew up in
>San Antonio, Texas part of my childhood and there was
>a man who was in a trial. He was convicted on what
>some thought was good evidence, but not to a lot of
>what the public saw in the supposed evidence. The
>public mostly was against him being executed. When
>it came time to do just that, the man on death row
>pleaded, and begged and cried and was dragged
>into the place where they would end his life. He said
>"Please, please, I am innocent, please hear me, please
>do not do this." But they executed him anyway. After the
>man died, a short while later, another man came forth who
>was overwhelmed with a guilty conscience and he said
>that he was the one who was the real killer and that
>the man they put to death really was innocent. I was
>ten years old when that case made a profound influence
>on me that a person should be considered innocent
>until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Your country is still barbaric enough to murder some of its prisoners.
WvB was barbaric enough to allow thousands to die building his
rockets.
>That's
>what I believe and I believe it very strongly. It's a terrible
>thing that the man who was innocent had to die, but I don't
>think he died in vain because a lot of people after that
>resolved to always uphold the idea that a person is
>innocent until proved guilty.
WvB has been proven guilty.
>>
>I know that my opinion is strong, but I thank you also for
>having the courage to speak up about what you believe,
>too. I'm glad that we each can do that.
>>
>Regards,
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
el cid
> On Aug 3, 7:29 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 7:06 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > He had no crimes. A person is innocent untilproven
> > >guilty, notguiltyuntilproveninnocent.
>
> > This particular argument is extraordinarily weak and
> > a pet peeve of mine.
>
> > Specific accusations aside, within a formal system of
> > governmental justice, there are clear and compelling
> > reasons to hold individuals as innocent untilproven
> >guilty. It is absurd, however, to confuse this with a
> > statement of fact.
>
> > I see no reason for individuals to be required to hold
> > are rendered into service in the formal justice system.
> > Nor should my opinion be restricted to what a particular
> > justice system should decide. Maintaining otherwise
> > completely misses the principles on which "innocent
>
> > Wither or no Hitler was ever tried I think he wasguilty
> > of a fair number of rather obvious crimes. Examples of
> > could likewise be offered.
>
> Guilt is not obvious in the case of ...
[[[ snip ]]]
> I know that my opinion is strong, but I thank you also for
> having the courage to speak up about what you believe,
> too. I'm glad that we each can do that.
I do believe this is a fair example of why people find
you frustrating in the extreme.
You asserted somebody, and I leave the particulars out
to avoid the high emotion part of the argument, was
innocent because people are innocent until proven
guilty. You present this in the form of a logical
argument. My response was to the validity of the logical
form, more specifically expounding on why the logical
form you chose fails.
Your response completely avoided the point and instead
proceeded to toss in new arguments. Courage is a nice
enough thing but courage of convictions is not a
substitute for valid logic.
I make no judgments on on the truth or falsity of
a particular persons guilt or innocence here. I
instead point out that the specific logical argument
you tried, that someone is "innocent until proven
guilty", fails to support its conclusion. As a
matter of logic, failing to support a conclusion
does not argue against the conclusion, so you are
safe in a manner of speaking. It is not your conclusion
that I am pointing out is in error, but your logic,
at least for this one specific argument about
"innocent until proven guilty".
I'm bothering with this for 2 reasons. Firstly,
as I said before, the particular argument involves
a pet peeve of mine. But secondly, I wonder if
you might not consider this example and ponder
if there is a lesson for you. It might help explain
why you have been ineffective in your dialogs
with others on this forum. Courage of your
convictions, or if you will, confidence in the
truth of your conclusions, is not a substitute
for correctness of your argument.
Suzanne
"On December 22, 1942, Adolf Hitler signed the order approving the
productino of the A-4 as a 'vengeance weapon' and the group
developed it to target London." (The A-4 was renamed the V-2.)
"Von Braun's interest in rockets was specifically for the application
of space travel, which led him to say on hearing the news from
London: 'The rocket worked perfectly except for landing on the
wrong planet.' He described it as his 'darkest day.' "
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 4, 6:08 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> >So you have to have concrete
>> >proof that someone actually did what they are being
>> >accused of before you can be reasonably sure that they
>> >are guilty of something.
>>
>> That proof has been given.
I see, no reply to that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I am not naive enough to believe
>> >that someone is this totally innocent person just because
>> >I think they smile pretty or can charm the ears off of a
>> >mule. I'm basing my belief on the fact that I grew up in
>> >San Antonio, Texas part of my childhood and there was
>> >a man who was in a trial. He was convicted on what
>> >some thought was good evidence, but not to a lot of
>> >what the public saw in the supposed evidence. The
>> >public mostly was against him being executed. When
>> >it came time to do just that, the man on death row
>> >pleaded, and begged and cried and was dragged
>> >into the place where they would end his life. He said
>> >"Please, please, I am innocent, please hear me, please
>> >do not do this." But they executed him anyway. After the
>> >man died, a short while later, another man came forth who
>> >was overwhelmed with a guilty conscience and he said
>> >that he was the one who was the real killer and that
>> >the man they put to death really was innocent. I was
>> >ten years old when that case made a profound influence
>> >on me that a person should be considered innocent
>> >until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>>
>> Your country is still barbaric enough to murder some of its prisoners.
I see, no reply to that either.
>>
>> WvB was barbaric enough to allow thousands to die building his
>> rockets.
Or that.
>>
>> >That's
>> >what I believe and I believe it very strongly. It's a terrible
>> >thing that the man who was innocent had to die, but I don't
>> >think he died in vain because a lot of people after that
>> >resolved to always uphold the idea that a person is
>> >innocent until proved guilty.
>>
>> WvB has been proven guilty.
>>
>Lines from Wikipedia say...
>"On December 22, 1942, Adolf Hitler signed the order approving the
>productino of the A-4 as a 'vengeance weapon' and the group
>developed it to target London." (The A-4 was renamed the V-2.)
So? The name isn't relevant. The purpose of the design is. It was
designed to target civilian areas - it had no battlefield use at all.
>"Von Braun's interest in rockets was specifically for the application
>of space travel,
But he willingly designed the V2 for the Nazis to use as a weapon to
kill civilians.
>which led him to say on hearing the news from
>London: 'The rocket worked perfectly except for landing on the
>wrong planet.' He described it as his 'darkest day.' "
Then why did he do it?
And don't say he was forced because that would be a bare faced lie.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Wombat
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
There was one attempt to use the V-2 in a battlefield role. 11 were
pooped off at the Ludendorff bridge at Remagen - yes, that one. They
all missed!
http://john999555space.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!AC089ECEF5C6309D!290.entry
Wombat
Wombat
>
> Wombat
Whoops! Should have read the bottom of my link. It seems possible
that the bridge, already weakened, was shaken down by one of the V-2s
which landed 300 yards away.
Wombat
J. J. Lodder
I already told him so sometime ago.
(like Suzanne, he just does't listen
to things he doesn't want to hear)
Even though no direct hit was scored
a V2 impact may have contributed
to the collapse of the bridge.
And the London and Antwerp docks
may well be considered a legitimate military target.
It it wasn't, then so were 'bomber' Harris raids.
The design of the V2
was for an accuracy of 2 permille,
better than an artillery shell.
It never achieved that, but by 1943
the measured CEP was down to 4.3 km.
The final V2 (with beam guidance)
is claimed to have had a CEP of 2 km,
good enough for battle field use.
The Americans can count themselves lucky
that only 11 V2s were available for Remagen.
So, the claim that the V2
was nothing but a terror weapon
by design and use is clearly wrong,
Jan
Wombat
>
> I already told him so sometime ago.
> (like Suzanne, he just does't listen
> to things he doesn't want to hear)
> Even though no direct hit was scored
> a V2 impact may have contributed
> to the collapse of the bridge.
>
> And the London and Antwerp docks
> may well be considered a legitimate military target.
> It it wasn't, then so were 'bomber' Harris raids.
>
> The design of the V2
> was for an accuracy of 2 permille,
> better than an artillery shell.
> It never achieved that, but by 1943
> the measured CEP was down to 4.3 km.
> The final V2 (with beam guidance)
> is claimed to have had a CEP of 2 km,
> good enough for battle field use.
> The Americans can count themselves lucky
> that only 11 V2s were available for Remagen.
>
> So, the claim that the V2
> was nothing but a terror weapon
> by design and use is clearly wrong,
>
> Jan
Yes, but how many were fired at London, compares to Remagen (11) and
Antwerp.
The first V-2 fired at London impacted in West London, many miles from
the Docks. Collateral damage, perhaps? Do you know how many actually
hit the docks in London or Antwerp?
Wombat
Ye Old One
Well you learn something every day :)
But it certain doesn't seem to be a success.
>
>Wombat
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
These sites may help with the London hits.
http://londonist.com/2009/01/london_v2_rocket_sitesmapped.php
http://www.flyingbombsandrockets.com/V1_summary.html
--
Bob.
J. J. Lodder
Numbers don't matter for this.
We were discussing YOO's endlessly repeated assertion that
===
It (the V2) was designed to target civilian areas - it had no
battlefield use at all.
===
which is false.
Even when aimed at London it wasn't targeted at civilian areas.
It just happened to hit civilians most of the time,
for lack of accuracy.
It didn't differ in that respect
from most other bomber missions in WW II.
Jan
Dan Luke
"Suzanne" wrote:
>> WvB has been proven guilty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He described it as his 'darkest day.' "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No doubt he did, the self-serving Nazi prick.
Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Suzanne
> "Suzanne" wrote:
> >> WvB has been proven guilty.
>
arranged your post, the words "WvB has been
proven guilty," appear right under the words
" 'Suzanne' wrote:" He was not proven any
thing like that.
>
Dan, I have answered you about the La Brea tar
pits. I've done that several times. My answer was,
"I don't know." I also then said, that I was interested
in your answer as to why you think there were no
dinosaurs there. I don't understand why they should
have to be there anyway. Though dinosaurs bones
are found all over the globe, I see no reason for them
to occupy all spaces in the ground. I would think they
would be in places where they could get food easily.
I suppose that where the tar pits are, there were just
simply no dino diner dinners offered in that particular
location.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> He described it as his 'darkest day.' "
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> No doubt he did, the self-serving Nazi prick.
>
first attack on London, and he expressed surprise that
the rocket actually worked. But he said that it landed on
the wrong planet. In case you don't understand that, he
was indicating that it was intended for space travel.
>
> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>
>
Suzanne
Wombat
Thanks for these. The second one in particular was interesting since
I was born and grew up in SE London and remember well the bomb sites
there.
Wombat
Suzanne
>
You may have not understood what i was saying.
I think I am hearing you say that you understand
the words "a man is innocent until proven guilty,"
in a different manner than I am understanding
them. In my opinion, the words do not mean that
"a man IS innocent until proven guilty," but that
"a man should be REGARDED as being innocent
until proven guilty." That will proved the best
chance for him to receive a fair trial.
>
Suzanne
Wombat
Yes, but you brought up the German targeting plan, but sliding away is
your MO, isn't it.
Wombat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<a5367ab1-92ae-44db...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>):
> You may have not understood what i was saying.
We understood quite well.
> I think I am hearing you say that you understand
> the words "a man is innocent until proven guilty,"
> in a different manner than I am understanding
> them. In my opinion, the words do not mean that
> "a man IS innocent until proven guilty," but that
> "a man should be REGARDED as being innocent
> until proven guilty." That will proved the best
> chance for him to receive a fair trial.
Von Braun went far out of his way to avoid such a trial... possibly because
he was justifiably afraid of the probable results.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
TomS
J.J. O'Shea stated..."
>
>On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:47:25 -0400, Suzanne wrote
>(in article
><a5367ab1-92ae-44db...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> You may have not understood what i was saying.
>
>We understood quite well.
May I suggest phrasing that more carefully as, "We understood it no
less well than you."
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <259566746.000...@drn.newsguy.com>):
> "On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 08:29:01 -0400, in article
> <h5eia...@news6.newsguy.com>,
> J.J. O'Shea stated..."
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:47:25 -0400, Suzanne wrote
>> (in article
>> <a5367ab1-92ae-44db...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> You may have not understood what i was saying.
>>
>> We understood quite well.
> [...snip...]
>
> May I suggest phrasing that more carefully as, "We understood it no
> less well than you."
>
Oh, yeah. You're right, of course.
Ye Old One
No it isn't. It was designed to kill civilians.
It was not designed for use in battlefield conditions.
>
>Even when aimed at London it wasn't targeted at civilian areas.
It was targeted at London, that was a close as they could get. Even
then some didn't hit their target.
>It just happened to hit civilians most of the time,
>for lack of accuracy.
>It didn't differ in that respect
>from most other bomber missions in WW II.
Very big difference.
>
>Jan
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 5, 8:10 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>> "Suzanne" wrote:
>> >> WvB has been proven guilty.
>>
>Well, Dan, isn't that amazing that when you
>arranged your post, the words "WvB has been
>proven guilty," appear right under the words
>" 'Suzanne' wrote:" He was not proven any
>thing like that.
Of course he was proven guilty.
>>
>Dan, I have answered you about the La Brea tar
>pits. I've done that several times. My answer was,
>"I don't know." I also then said, that I was interested
>in your answer as to why you think there were no
>dinosaurs there.
You have been told, many times, it is because dinosaurs died out LONG
before the tar pits formed.
>I don't understand why they should
>have to be there anyway. Though dinosaurs bones
>are found all over the globe, I see no reason for them
>to occupy all spaces in the ground. I would think they
>would be in places where they could get food easily.
>I suppose that where the tar pits are, there were just
>simply no dino diner dinners offered in that particular
>location.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> He described it as his 'darkest day.' "
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> No doubt he did, the self-serving Nazi prick.
>>
>Apparently that is not correct.
Yes it is.
> He heard about the
>first attack on London, and he expressed surprise that
>the rocket actually worked.
Yep, so many had failed and very few had come anywhere near there
intended targets.
> But he said that it landed on
>the wrong planet. In case you don't understand that, he
>was indicating that it was intended for space travel.
But the V2 was never designed for space travel. If he made that
comment it was a very stupid one.
>>
>> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>>
>Yeah, how about that. When are you going to tell us?
Your reading disability is well known.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
>
> > He did not capture
> >people, and put them in concentration camps. He did not
> >create the concentration camps. He did not order the lack
> >of food and ill living conditions,
>
> He could have done a lot to better them.
>
have done? And what makes you think that you
know what he did, or didn't do, during his time
there?
>
> > Hitler did those things. He
> >did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
>
> The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
> deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
>
a weapon and that was Hitler's idea.
>
> > It wasn't even until near the end of the war
> >that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
> >rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.
>
> WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
> no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
> civilians.
>
in the clouds, looking up at the heavens, beholding the
glory of the moon and stars and that he wanted to give
them to the world. All that he accomplished shows that.
>
> > It's also a fact
> >that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
> >rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
> >forcing them to do.
>
> No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
> most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
> believe that one snippet.
>
country for various reasons, one of which is political assylum.
People do not have to lie in order to receive such as that.
We have your country's beautiful red-headed duchess
living here that your country's media trashed. We know of
her misdeeds and we love her anyway, and we wanted
to give her a chance. No one can blame you for your
suspicioius attitude towards WVB, since you live in the
place his regime wanted to hurl missiles at, but not everyone
in your country feels the way that you do.
>
> >They even know that the woman was
> >a young woman who was a dental assistant that turned
> >them in. We know that when WVB and the team surrendered
> >to the Americans, that one man that was present said that
> >he seemed to act like WVB fancied himself as being some
> >kind of hero or statesman, and that he eagerly let himself
> >be photographed with individual Americans who wanted
> >his picture made with them. That was told to a writer who
> >wanted to report the event. But that man was telling what
> >he thought that someone is thinking, and he did not really
> >know what he was thinking of course and the man could
> >have read the moment wrong.
>
> Could he? WvB was always a publicity seeker.
>
was speculating about what V.B. thought. He did not
know what someone thinks.
>
I said she was a dental assistant, but she was a
young dentist, not an assistant.
>
> >But one thing is for sure,
> >if he had been in chains, the man would have told that
> >for sure, but he never said such a thing.
>
> Abusing English again.
>
which reflects spoken English that one might use in an
oral conversation. It is the way we speak in posts,
and you know it. You express your displeasure in a
sentence fragment, though, if you are looking for
perfection. "Abusing English again," is not a sentence,
it's a fragment of one, and therefore considered to
be incorrect English, if it is perfection that you are
seeking.
>
> >Another thing that is rather obvious to me whether or not
> >others have noticed it, is that if WVB was approving of
> >what Hitler was doing, the most obvious thing is what
> >Hitler did to the Jews. Yet in this country it was WVB that
> >stood up and was outspoken about how segregation was
> >wrong and how persecuting someone because of the
> >color of his skin is wrong.
>
> Did he? So what?
> >
country for standing up for the rights of individuals,
and being against any kind of ethnic persecution,
That is the opposite of what Hitler's regime did.
>
> >So you have to have concrete
> >proof that someone actually did what they are being
> >accused of before you can be reasonably sure that they
> >are guilty of something.
>
> That proof has been given.
>
have been shown.
>
> > I am not naive enough to believe
> >that someone is this totally innocent person just because
> >I think they smile pretty or can charm the ears off of a
> >mule. I'm basing my belief on the fact that I grew up in
> >San Antonio, Texas part of my childhood and there was
> >a man who was in a trial. He was convicted on what
> >some thought was good evidence, but not to a lot of
> >what the public saw in the supposed evidence. The
> >public mostly was against him being executed. When
> >it came time to do just that, the man on death row
> >pleaded, and begged and cried and was dragged
> >into the place where they would end his life. He said
> >"Please, please, I am innocent, please hear me, please
> >do not do this." But they executed him anyway. After the
> >man died, a short while later, another man came forth who
> >was overwhelmed with a guilty conscience and he said
> >that he was the one who was the real killer and that
> >the man they put to death really was innocent. I was
> >ten years old when that case made a profound influence
> >on me that a person should be considered innocent
> >until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
> Your country is still barbaric enough to murder some of its prisoners.
>
> WvB was barbaric enough to allow thousands to die building his
> rockets.
>
as if by force. If he was, then he would be our prisoner. If
he had been our prisoner, we treated him very kindly, and not
as you are claiming. He was not our prisoner, though, he was
an immigrant who became a citizen, and who gifted the world
with his knowledge.
>
> >That's
> >what I believe and I believe it very strongly. It's a terrible
> >thing that the man who was innocent had to die, but I don't
> >think he died in vain because a lot of people after that
> >resolved to always uphold the idea that a person is
> >innocent until proved guilty.
>
> WvB has been proven guilty.
>
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
You seem to be the only one claiming that.
>>
>> > He did not capture
>> >people, and put them in concentration camps. He did not
>> >create the concentration camps. He did not order the lack
>> >of food and ill living conditions,
>>
>> He could have done a lot to better them.
>>
>Please explain. What do you think that he could
>have done?
Well, he could have insisted on better treatment/food/conditions. The
reason to do so would have been that they would have worked better,
not requiring training of frequent replacements, more able to pay
attention to detail.
>And what makes you think that you
>know what he did, or didn't do, during his time
>there?
It is called history. You should study it some time.
>>
>> > Hitler did those things. He
>> >did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
>> >Hitler did that..
>>
>> The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
>> deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
>>
>No. Hiler signed an order that the V-2 would be used as
>a weapon and that was Hitler's idea.
The V2 was authorized for use by Hitler, of course. But it was
designed as a weapon from day one - otherwise why would the military
have paid for the years of development?
>>
>> > It wasn't even until near the end of the war
>> >that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
>> >rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.
>>
>> WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
>> no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
>> civilians.
>>
>It is well known that Wernher Von Braun had his head
>in the clouds, looking up at the heavens, beholding the
>glory of the moon and stars and that he wanted to give
>them to the world. All that he accomplished shows that.
That does not change the well known fact that WvB designed, built,
tested and then mass produced a weapon that had no battlefield use,
designed from the outset to kill civilians. Please address that issue.
>>
>> > It's also a fact
>> >that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
>> >rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
>> >forcing them to do.
>>
>> No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
>> most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
>> believe that one snippet.
>>
>Also, America is formed from immigrants who came to this
>country for various reasons, one of which is political assylum.
Why change the subject?
>People do not have to lie in order to receive such as that.
>We have your country's beautiful red-headed duchess
>living here that your country's media trashed.
Hohohoho!
>We know of
>her misdeeds
She was never a war criminal.
> and we love her anyway, and we wanted
>to give her a chance. No one can blame you for your
>suspicioius attitude towards WVB, since you live in the
>place his regime wanted to hurl missiles at, but not everyone
>in your country feels the way that you do.
No, that is true, even in the UK there are people as poorly educated
as you - just look at Spincronic as a prime example.
>>
>> >They even know that the woman was
>> >a young woman who was a dental assistant that turned
>> >them in. We know that when WVB and the team surrendered
>> >to the Americans, that one man that was present said that
>> >he seemed to act like WVB fancied himself as being some
>> >kind of hero or statesman, and that he eagerly let himself
>> >be photographed with individual Americans who wanted
>> >his picture made with them. That was told to a writer who
>> >wanted to report the event. But that man was telling what
>> >he thought that someone is thinking, and he did not really
>> >know what he was thinking of course and the man could
>> >have read the moment wrong.
>>
>> Could he? WvB was always a publicity seeker.
>>
>No, I think the man's words gave it away that he
>was speculating about what V.B. thought. He did not
>know what someone thinks.
His actions showed he was a publicity seeker.
>>
>I said she was a dental assistant, but she was a
>young dentist, not an assistant.
So what? It is doubtful the event was true.
>>
>> >But one thing is for sure,
>> >if he had been in chains, the man would have told that
>> >for sure, but he never said such a thing.
>>
>> Abusing English again.
>>
>You don't like it because I started a sentence with "But,"
Nope - that was the only part that actually made sense?
>which reflects spoken English that one might use in an
>oral conversation. It is the way we speak in posts,
>and you know it. You express your displeasure in a
>sentence fragment, though, if you are looking for
>perfection. "Abusing English again," is not a sentence,
Yes it is.
>it's a fragment of one, and therefore considered to
>be incorrect English,
Bloody rubbish.
> if it is perfection that you are
>seeking.
From you I'm seeking things that actually make sense.
>>
>> >Another thing that is rather obvious to me whether or not
>> >others have noticed it, is that if WVB was approving of
>> >what Hitler was doing, the most obvious thing is what
>> >Hitler did to the Jews. Yet in this country it was WVB that
>> >stood up and was outspoken about how segregation was
>> >wrong and how persecuting someone because of the
>> >color of his skin is wrong.
>>
>> Did he? So what?
>> >
>Yes he did,
Do you have a cite for that?
> and "so what" is that he is known in my
>country for standing up for the rights of individuals,
>and being against any kind of ethnic persecution,
>That is the opposite of what Hitler's regime did.
Since he was an enthusiastic Nazi, joining up freely long before it
became the "politically correct" thing to do, I find your claims hard
to believe without evidence. After all, you have been wrong so many
times in the past.
>>
>> >So you have to have concrete
>> >proof that someone actually did what they are being
>> >accused of before you can be reasonably sure that they
>> >are guilty of something.
>>
>> That proof has been given.
>>
>No proof has been given. Just suspicions and speculations
>have been shown.
Liar!
Stupid woman.
> You claimed that WVB was captured
>as if by force. If he was, then he would be our prisoner.
He was, for quite a time.
>If
>he had been our prisoner, we treated him very kindly, and not
>as you are claiming.
Operation Paperclip.
>He was not our prisoner,
Yes he was, for several years, in fact it was well into the 50s before
he ceased to be under effective house arrest.
> though, he was
>an immigrant who became a citizen, and who gifted the world
>with his knowledge.
But he was a war criminal.
>>
>> >That's
>> >what I believe and I believe it very strongly. It's a terrible
>> >thing that the man who was innocent had to die, but I don't
>> >think he died in vain because a lot of people after that
>> >resolved to always uphold the idea that a person is
>> >innocent until proved guilty.
>>
>> WvB has been proven guilty.
>>
>No, he hasn't, he was cleared.
Wrong. As usual.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
J. J. Lodder
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 00:13:25 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5 Aug, 17:02, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> >> > > On 5 Aug, 12:07, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> > > > On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> > > > <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > >On Aug 4, 6:08 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> > > > >> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> > > > >Lines from Wikipedia say...
It was designed to deliver a ton of high explosive
as accurately as possible.
A clear case of 'technology push':
we have this liquid fuel rocket motor,
and we'll do the best we can with it.
> >Even when aimed at London it wasn't targeted at civilian areas.
>
> It was targeted at London, that was a close as they could get.
Incorrect. Early ones had a CEP of about 4 km.
This was later refined to about 2 km.
London is much bigger than that.
Given more time they would probably have achieved
their design goal of 2 permille.
(better than long range artillery)
> Even then some didn't hit their target.
Yes, so what?
> >It just happened to hit civilians most of the time,
> >for lack of accuracy.
> >It didn't differ in that respect
> >from most other bomber missions in WW II.
>
> Very big difference.
Yes. The Germans at least tried to hit
something of relevance with their V2s.
Harris on the other hand was a pure terrorist.
He carried out 'morale bombardment'
aimed not at factories of military relevance,
not at workers there, not at living quarters nearby,
but just at Germans in general.
(in the hope of getting them to overthrow the regime)
Jan
Burkhard
ff. This is of course the leading biography that I cited before,and
Suzanne ignored. Now an interesting dilemma. Is Neufeld still an
attention seeking sensationalist who does not know how to research
properly, or are his statements about Braun's stated opposition to
segregation (and the disruption it brought) reliable? If so, why not his
analysis in Chapters 4-8?
Ye Old One
Since it was know, from the earliest design stage, that accuracy was
not going to be achievable, by definition it was designed to hit large
cities as a terror weapon.
>A clear case of 'technology push':
>we have this liquid fuel rocket motor,
>and we'll do the best we can with it.
>
>> >Even when aimed at London it wasn't targeted at civilian areas.
>>
>> It was targeted at London, that was a close as they could get.
>
>Incorrect. Early ones had a CEP of about 4 km.
>This was later refined to about 2 km.
>London is much bigger than that.
But still many of them missed because their guidance was so
rudimentary.
>Given more time they would probably have achieved
>their design goal of 2 permille.
>(better than long range artillery)
Given a lot more time.
>
>> Even then some didn't hit their target.
>
>Yes, so what?
Made battlefield use impossible - just as likely to hit your own
troops.
>
>> >It just happened to hit civilians most of the time,
>> >for lack of accuracy.
>> >It didn't differ in that respect
>> >from most other bomber missions in WW II.
>>
>> Very big difference.
>
>Yes. The Germans at least tried to hit
>something of relevance with their V2s.
>Harris on the other hand was a pure terrorist.
>He carried out 'morale bombardment'
>aimed not at factories of military relevance,
>not at workers there, not at living quarters nearby,
>but just at Germans in general.
>(in the hope of getting them to overthrow the regime)
Blood good idea.
>
>Jan
>
>
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 4, 6:08 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >> >On Aug 3, 7:29 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Aug 3, 7:06 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >Guilt is not obvious in the case of WVB.
>
> >> When you look at the evidence his guilt is clear.
>
> >It is not.
>
> You seem to be the only one claiming that.
>
I've said in Wikipedia.
>
>
> >> > He did not capture
> >> >people, and put them in concentration camps. He did not
> >> >create the concentration camps. He did not order the lack
> >> >of food and ill living conditions,
>
> >> He could have done a lot to better them.
>
> >Please explain. What do you think that he could
> >have done?
>
> Well, he could have insisted on better treatment/food/conditions. The
> reason to do so would have been that they would have worked better,
> not requiring training of frequent replacements, more able to pay
> attention to detail.
>
do Hitler's instructions. Read this:
"When asked if von Braun could have protested against the brutal
treatment of the slave laborers, von Braun team member Konrad
Dannenberg told The Huntsville Times, 'If he had done it, in my
opinion, he would have been shot on the spot.' "
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Wernher_von_Braun
>
> >And what makes you think that you
> >know what he did, or didn't do, during his time
> >there?
>
> It is called history. You should study it some time.
>
you consider things that don't fit what you want them to say as being
some kind of plot.
>
>
> >> > Hitler did those things. He
> >> >did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
> >> >Hitler did that..
>
> >> The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
> >> deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
>
> >No. Hiler signed an order that the V-2 would be used as
> >a weapon and that was Hitler's idea.
>
> The V2 was authorized for use by Hitler, of course. But it was
> designed as a weapon from day one - otherwise why would the military
> have paid for the years of development?
>
it and people also other than myself have told you
this is not correct. I can tell you that at Peenemunde, although the
army insisted on some occasions of packing the V-2 with explosives to
test it, usually they
were more interested in how it would launch into outer
space, and that is proved by the fact that started
launching baloons and rockets with scientific instruments instead of
explosives in them. They seemed more interested in what happened to a
rocket when it went way far up through the atmosphere, than
in seeing how it would explode, or hit a ground target.
In fact, it's known that many of the V-2's did not hit
their targets and some didn't even explode. Some were filled with
paper propaganda trying to intimidate the
civilians.
>
> >> > It wasn't even until near the end of the war
> >> >that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
> >> >rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.
>
> >> WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
> >> no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
> >> civilians.
>
> >It is well known that Wernher Von Braun had his head
> >in the clouds, looking up at the heavens, beholding the
> >glory of the moon and stars and that he wanted to give
> >them to the world. All that he accomplished shows that.
>
> That does not change the well known fact that WvB designed, built,
> tested and then mass produced a weapon that had no battlefield use,
> designed from the outset to kill civilians. Please address that issue.
>
and death was what would have happened to him if he didn't. It's well-
known that he
was against what Hitler was doing and that he said
he was surprised the rocket worked perfectly but that
it hit the wrong planet. It is well-known that he was thrown into jail
for not wanting to comply with Hitler, and that he would rather be
building space vehicles.
It's well-known that he had to pick forced labor workers and that he
did not hold back telling the USA this when
he was asked, and it is well-known that when Hitler used his rocket
for a weapon that he said that it was
his "darkest hour." But to you that is all a deep plot.
He obviously did not like what Hitler was doing.
>
> >> > It's also a fact
> >> >that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
> >> >rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
> >> >forcing them to do.
>
> >> No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
> >> most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
> >> believe that one snippet.
>
> >Also, America is formed from immigrants who came to this
> >country for various reasons, one of which is political assylum.
>
> Why change the subject?
>
you had said. You make the claim that it was a
plot that fed the public lies about WVB in order
that they would be more receptive to him after
the war when he came to America.
>
> >People do not have to lie in order to receive such as that.
> >We have your country's beautiful red-headed duchess
> >living here that your country's media trashed.
>
> Hohohoho!
>
love her and think that your country was really,
really harsh on her. They were so harsh also on
Diana. I remember she cut her hair one time and
your newspapers referred to it as her "latest
short sharp shock." And she was absolutely
gorgeous, no matter what she did with her hair.
>
> >We know of
> >her misdeeds
>
> She was never a war criminal.
>
victim of a media war, before she
ever made mistakes.
>
> > and we love her anyway, and we wanted
> >to give her a chance. No one can blame you for your
> >suspicioius attitude towards WVB, since you live in the
> >place his regime wanted to hurl missiles at, but not everyone
> >in your country feels the way that you do.
>
> No, that is true, even in the UK there are people as
> poorly educated
> as you - just look at Spincronic as a prime example.
>
>
> >> >They even know that the woman was
> >> >a young woman who was a dental assistant that turned
> >> >them in. We know that when WVB and the team surrendered
> >> >to the Americans, that one man that was present said that
> >> >he seemed to act like WVB fancied himself as being some
> >> >kind of hero or statesman, and that he eagerly let himself
> >> >be photographed with individual Americans who wanted
> >> >his picture made with them. That was told to a writer who
> >> >wanted to report the event. But that man was telling what
> >> >he thought that someone is thinking, and he did not really
> >> >know what he was thinking of course and the man could
> >> >have read the moment wrong.
>
> >> Could he? WvB was always a publicity seeker.
>
> >No, I think the man's words gave it away that he
> >was speculating about what V.B. thought. He did not
> >know what someone thinks.
>
> His actions showed he was a publicity seeker.
>
him, he was a very humble and
considerate person. He also didn't have to go out of
his way to seek publicity, it came to him instead. When he was spoken
to publicly/publically (both are correct), he sparkled. Most people
like attention but not many know how to act when they get it. He
apparently did.
He simply did not seem to be shy.
>
>
> >I said she was a dental assistant, but she was a
> >young dentist, not an assistant.
>
> So what? It is doubtful the event was true.
>
which you usually trust. Except, I suppose, when it does not suit
you.
>
> >> >But one thing is for sure,
> >> >if he had been in chains, the man would have told that
> >> >for sure, but he never said such a thing.
>
> >> Abusing English again.
>
> >You don't like it because I started a sentence with "But,"
>
> Nope - that was the only part that actually made sense?
>
if you are looking for perfection. "Nope" would not
make it either.
>
> >which reflects spoken English that one might use in an
> >oral conversation. It is the way we speak in posts,
> >and you know it. You express your displeasure in a
> >sentence fragment, though, if you are looking for
> >perfection. "Abusing English again," is not a sentence,
>
> Yes it is.
>
therefore it was a sentence fragment. So, if you
demand perfection, then you will engender
criticism. Usually not by me, obviously. I am only
doing this to show you that you are claiming that
someone is not correct, but doing so with words
that are less than perfect, yourself.
>
> >it's a fragment of one, and therefore considered to
> >be incorrect English,
>
> Bloody rubbish.
>
>
> > if it is perfection that you are
> >seeking.
>
> From you I'm seeking things that actually make sense.
>
from someone that you think is so lacking.
>
> >> >Another thing that is rather obvious to me whether or not
> >> >others have noticed it, is that if WVB was approving of
> >> >what Hitler was doing, the most obvious thing is what
> >> >Hitler did to the Jews. Yet in this country it was WVB that
> >> >stood up and was outspoken about how segregation was
> >> >wrong and how persecuting someone because of the
> >> >color of his skin is wrong.
>
> >> Did he? So what?
>
> >Yes he did,
>
> Do you have a cite for that?
>
George Wallace became the governor of Alabama,
and in his inaugural address, he said:
"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I
draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of
tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation
forever."
The lines were written according to what he wanted
said, by a man named Earl Carter, a descendant of
the Cherokee Indians in America.
>
Gov. Wallace tried to stop black students from enrolling
in the University of Alabama, by standing in front of the auditorium
where they enrolled. He also tried the same thing again in Huntsville
(Where Wernher Von Braun lived) at four elementary schools, preventing
a black child from each school from enrolling. But a Birmingham (the
capitol of Alabama) federal court intervened and the students were
allowed to enroll.
http://www.answers.com/topic/george-wallace
Oh, and by the way, Governor Wallace changed
his mind later and saw that it was wrong to have
segregation.
>
Wernher Von Braun was against segregation in
Alabama. In the book "Dr. Space, the life of
Wernher von Braun, the authot, Bob Ward explains
that when asked about the treatment of the forced
laborers/concentration camp captives:
" No I didn’t know about them [the death camps], but I suspected. And
in my position I could have found out if I had wanted to, and I
didn’t. And I despise myself for not doing so."
So he did not like it because he didn't really get
involved, but as it seems he would have probably
been shot if he did.
Bob Ward also says about him, in the section of
Ward's book about the 1960's...
"that the very same man took time from the rocket work that gave his
life meaning to push for desegregation in George Wallace's Alabama."
>
I believe that he would have been killed for just
having an iota of an inkling of a hint of an idea
that was against Hitler. He had gotten into something
that was way over his head.
>
> > and "so what" is that he is known in my
> >country for standing up for the rights of individuals,
> >and being against any kind of ethnic persecution,
> >That is the opposite of what Hitler's regime did.
>
> Since he was an enthusiastic Nazi, joining up freely long before it
> became the "politically correct" thing to do, I find your claims hard
> to believe without evidence. After all, you have been wrong so many
> times in the past.
>
need to read yourself, he was not an enthusiastic
nazi. What I just said that he said above, he did not have to
volunteer, but he was showing that he had
not wanted to be involved in that portion of what was
going on, and it has been said by someone that was
there, which I quoted, that if he had done that he
probably would have been shot on the spot.
Army whom they had agreed to work for. They
were confined to the base, yet not entirely because
if they wanted to go into town (which they could do)
they had to have soldiers go with them and that
was for their protection and for our protection so
that nothing happened to them. They lived in
El Paso which was a border town and they could
have been captured by another country who came
across the border.
>
You missed the point of why I had said this. You
claimed that my country murdered people that
were prisoners. I was showing you the inconsistency
of what you had claimed. You can't take one case
where justice was not served and then say that the
whole country was that way plus the government.
>
> > though, he was
> >an immigrant who became a citizen, and who gifted the world
> >with his knowledge.
>
> But he was a war criminal.
>
clearly did, on someone else just because he was
there and had to follow Hitler's orders or be killed.
>
> >> >That's
> >> >what I believe and I believe it very strongly. It's a terrible
> >> >thing that the man who was innocent had to die, but I don't
> >> >think he died in vain because a lot of people after that
> >> >resolved to always uphold the idea that a person is
> >> >innocent until proved guilty.
>
> >> WvB has been proven guilty.
>
in an interview with a French magazine that I have
previously posted in which he said that the gov't
of the USA had already cleared him. You will not
find our government refuting what he said publicly.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
I have read that they even called the A-4 the
V-2 because it means "vengeance."
>
Suzanne
Dan Luke
"Suzanne" wrote:
>
>> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>
> Yeah, how about that. When are you going to tell us?
I've already told you what I and paleontology think, dear: the dinosaurs
were millions of years gone before the first creatures began to be trapped
in La Brea. That's simple, it accords with the evidence.
Your problem is far more complex. You have to explain why your belief in
the coexistance of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna did not produce
dinosaurs in the tar pits.
So, why didn't it? I'm sure many here are eager to hear your explanation.
Suzanne
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
posts, so why are you waiting so long to say this?
And by the way I did give a reference. I don't know
what point you are making without a reference to
the post that you made it in. You might also look
at this reply to the book review about this book
by a person on this webpage.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2NBQ89759RY5G/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2NBQ89759RY5G
There are a lot of leading biographies about his
life. NASA also writes a biography that is available
online. It seems that they would have the best
sources.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> "Suzanne" wrote:
>
> >> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>
> > Yeah, how about that. When are you going to tell us?
>
> I've already told you what I and paleontology think, dear: the dinosaurs
> were millions of years gone before the first creatures began to be trapped
> in La Brea. That's simple, it accords with the evidence.
>
Your continual question about why dinosaur
bones are not in the pits sounds like you are
trying to make out like I made that an issue.
That's called propaganda.
>
> Your problem is far more complex. You have to explain why your belief in
> the coexistance of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna did not produce
> dinosaurs in the tar pits.
>
It's not logical that if dinosaurs existed in
Glen Rose, Texas along side of man, if
they did, that they should also have to be
in California in the La Brea Tar Pits.
>
> So, why didn't it? I'm sure many here are eager to hear your explanation.
>
that says that they should be in the tar pits.
>
Suzanne
Wombat
The Fieseler Fi 103 was renamed the V-1. Was the Fi 103 a dedicated
platform for scientific research as well?
Wombat
J. J. Lodder
> I have read that they even called the A-4 the
> V-2 because it means "vengeance."
Vergeltung, yes.
This has caused some confusion,
for the Germans also used V-numbers
for different versions of the same thing.
(which the V1 and V2 were not)
Jan
Burkhard
I have no idea what you mean with this. I posted my reply to YOO as
soon as I saw it.
> And by the way I did give a reference.
Re-read your own posts, and no, you did not.
I don't know
> what point you are making without a reference to
> the post that you made it in.
The fact that i cited in several posts both primary, archival material
from Neufeld(and others) books, and their own analysis of it as well -
but to no avail as you keep repeating your claims which are either
totally unsubstantiated, provably wrong or based on vpn Braun's words
only. The only response you aver gave to these academic studies was to
attack the integrity of the authors - also something I pointed out in
several posts.
>You might also look
> at this reply to the book review about this book
> by a person on this webpage.http://www.amazon.com/review/R2NBQ89759RY5G/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2NB...
"a person?" On a website? So how do you know that he has the knowledge
to make this assessment? If you want proper reviews you need the
relevant academic journals. As I posted before, this book won two
prestigious prices awarded by the relevant learned societies.
There are a lot of leading biographies about his
> life.
And yet you don't use them as evidence to suport your claims. Now,
having actually read most of them, I'd be quite happy to discuss any
claims they make that prop up your rewritten history - I personally
can't see any.
> NASA also writes a biography that is available
> online. It seems that they would have the best
> sources.
For his work after '45 possibly yes, for his work before no. And
Neufeld is Director of the Space History Division of the National Air
and Space Museum at the Smithsonian, difficult to imagine someone
better qualified or with better archival access.
>
> Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 7, 7:02 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>> "Suzanne" wrote:
>>
>> >> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>>
>> > Yeah, how about that. When are you going to tell us?
>>
>> I've already told you what I and paleontology think, dear: the dinosaurs
>> were millions of years gone before the first creatures began to be trapped
>> in La Brea. That's simple, it accords with the evidence.
>>
>And so, why are you bringing it up anyway?
>Your continual question about why dinosaur
>bones are not in the pits sounds like you are
>trying to make out like I made that an issue.
He is trying to find out if you have learned the answer, You have,
after all, been given it enough times.
>That's called propaganda.
No it isn't.
>>
>> Your problem is far more complex. You have to explain why your belief in
>> the coexistance of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna did not produce
>> dinosaurs in the tar pits.
>>
>Apparently my complex problem is you.
No it isn't.
>It's not logical that if dinosaurs existed in
>Glen Rose, Texas along side of man, if
>they did, that they should also have to be
>in California in the La Brea Tar Pits.
Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. They never c0-existed with
man or any of the large mammals.
>>
>> So, why didn't it? I'm sure many here are eager to hear your explanation.
>>
>It's not a proper question. Ask it of someone
>that says that they should be in the tar pits.
He is trying to find out if you understand why they are not found in
the pits. Now answer the question.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 6, 4:27 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 4, 6:08 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> >> >On Aug 3, 7:29 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Aug 3, 7:06 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>(snip)
>>
>> >> >Guilt is not obvious in the case of WVB.
>>
>> >> When you look at the evidence his guilt is clear.
>>
>> >It is not.
>>
>> You seem to be the only one claiming that.
>>
>Of course I am not. You can read most of what
>I've said in Wikipedia.
You seem to be the only one here claiming the evidence against WvB
isn't clear.
>>
>>
>> >> > He did not capture
>> >> >people, and put them in concentration camps. He did not
>> >> >create the concentration camps. He did not order the lack
>> >> >of food and ill living conditions,
>>
>> >> He could have done a lot to better them.
>>
>> >Please explain. What do you think that he could
>> >have done?
>>
>> Well, he could have insisted on better treatment/food/conditions. The
>> reason to do so would have been that they would have worked better,
>> not requiring training of frequent replacements, more able to pay
>> attention to detail.
>>
>He was living a nightmare with the SS
Maybe he should not have joined them so willingly.
>and the Gestapo always ready to
>do Hitler's instructions. Read this:
>"When asked if von Braun could have protested against the brutal
>treatment of the slave laborers, von Braun team member Konrad
>Dannenberg told The Huntsville Times, 'If he had done it, in my
>opinion, he would have been shot on the spot.' "
>http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Wernher_von_Braun
Bloody rubbish, he was considered highly important to the war effort -
he could have got away with a lot.
>>
>> >And what makes you think that you
>> >know what he did, or didn't do, during his time
>> >there?
>>
>> It is called history. You should study it some time.
>>
>I read history, and the history says the above.
The history convicts WvB on the evidence.
> But
>you consider things that don't fit what you want them to say as being
>some kind of plot.
I consider you to be a liar based on the evidence from so many of your
posts.
>>
>>
>> >> > Hitler did those things. He
>> >> >did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
>> >> >Hitler did that..
>>
>> >> The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
>> >> deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
>>
>> >No. Hiler signed an order that the V-2 would be used as
>> >a weapon and that was Hitler's idea.
>>
>> The V2 was authorized for use by Hitler, of course. But it was
>> designed as a weapon from day one - otherwise why would the military
>> have paid for the years of development?
>>
>You've made this claim and have been corrected about
>it and people also other than myself have told you
>this is not correct.
Liar!
> I can tell you that at Peenemunde, although the
>army insisted on some occasions of packing the V-2 with explosives to
>test it, usually they
>were more interested in how it would launch into outer
>space,
Liar!
The V2 was never designed as anything other than a weapon of terror.
>and that is proved by the fact that started
>launching baloons and rockets with scientific instruments instead of
>explosives in them.
Wrong, as usual. All the instruments launched were designed to tell
them more about the effects of the atmosphere on flight dynamics.
There were not, at least from 1940 on, doing any form of research into
space travel - they were designing a missile with the sole aim of
hitting civilians.
>They seemed more interested in what happened to a
>rocket when it went way far up through the atmosphere,
Well of course they were you dumbo - it had to do that in order to
reach its target.
> than
>in seeing how it would explode, or hit a ground target.
Just how wrong can you get. Most firings carried dummy war heads -
essential to the balance of the rocket.
>In fact, it's known that many of the V-2's did not hit
>their targets and some didn't even explode.
True. Poor design in part, plus a lot of sabotage.
> Some were filled with
>paper propaganda trying to intimidate the
>civilians.
True, but so what - that is not what they were designed for. The V2
was designed to deliver high explosives to a city.
>>
>> >> > It wasn't even until near the end of the war
>> >> >that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
>> >> >rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.
>>
>> >> WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
>> >> no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
>> >> civilians.
>>
>> >It is well known that Wernher Von Braun had his head
>> >in the clouds, looking up at the heavens, beholding the
>> >glory of the moon and stars and that he wanted to give
>> >them to the world. All that he accomplished shows that.
>>
>> That does not change the well known fact that WvB designed, built,
>> tested and then mass produced a weapon that had no battlefield use,
>> designed from the outset to kill civilians. Please address that issue.
>>
>I have addressed this issue.
You have attempted to - but failed.
>He was doing what he was ordered to do,
And as a good Nazi he carried out his orders with gusto.
>and death was what would have happened to him if he didn't. It's well-
>known that he
>was against what Hitler was doing
No it is not. He became a Nazi of his own free will and he joined the
SS freely.
> and that he said
>he was surprised the rocket worked perfectly but that
>it hit the wrong planet.
There is no real evidence he said that.
>It is well-known that he was thrown into jail
>for not wanting to comply with Hitler,
That is a lie you have been corrected on many times. Why do you keep
repeating it?
> and that he would rather be
>building space vehicles.
>It's well-known that he had to pick forced labor workers
No, he did not "have" to do it, he was a designer, and engineer.
> and that he
>did not hold back telling the USA this when
>he was asked,
Because they already knew. He didn't have to tell them anything.
> and it is well-known that when Hitler used his rocket
>for a weapon that he said that it was
>his "darkest hour."
No, again, there is no real evidence that was ever said.
>But to you that is all a deep plot.
>He obviously did not like what Hitler was doing.
We have an expression where I come from "Tell that to a dead donkey
and he'll kick your brains out" which I think fits very well in your
case.
>>
>> >> > It's also a fact
>> >> >that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
>> >> >rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
>> >> >forcing them to do.
>>
>> >> No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
>> >> most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
>> >> believe that one snippet.
>>
>> >Also, America is formed from immigrants who came to this
>> >country for various reasons, one of which is political assylum.
>>
>> Why change the subject?
>>
>I didn't change the subject.
Yes you did.
>I was answering what
>you had said.
No you were not.
> You make the claim that it was a
>plot that fed the public lies about WVB in order
>that they would be more receptive to him after
>the war when he came to America.
That is known to be 100% true.
>>
>> >People do not have to lie in order to receive such as that.
>> >We have your country's beautiful red-headed duchess
>> >living here that your country's media trashed.
>>
>> Hohohoho!
>>
>Yeah, well, that's something to think about. We
>love her and think that your country was really,
>really harsh on her.
You really are very stupid. She is much liked in the UK, though in
recent years she does spend too much time in the USA. I've met her
twice, one at a press launch for one of her books and another time
when she was visiting the city.
>They were so harsh also on
>Diana.
You do talk some bloody rubbish!
>I remember she cut her hair one time and
>your newspapers referred to it as her "latest
>short sharp shock."
So? She was a very public figure, she revelled in attention as it
allowed her to do her charity work much better. Sadly I never met her.
>And she was absolutely
>gorgeous, no matter what she did with her hair.
Well, no, she did not always have the sense to know what worked and
what didn't - but that is women for you.
>>
>> >We know of
>> >her misdeeds
>>
>> She was never a war criminal.
>>
>Sounds to me like the beautiful red headed duchess was more like the
>victim of a media war, before she
>ever made mistakes.
Rubbish.
>>
>> > and we love her anyway, and we wanted
>> >to give her a chance. No one can blame you for your
>> >suspicioius attitude towards WVB, since you live in the
>> >place his regime wanted to hurl missiles at, but not everyone
>> >in your country feels the way that you do.
>>
>> No, that is true, even in the UK there are people as
>> poorly educated
>> as you - just look at Spincronic as a prime example.
>>
>I am not poorly educated.
Yes you are, you have proved that more times than I care to count.
>>
>> >> >They even know that the woman was
>> >> >a young woman who was a dental assistant that turned
>> >> >them in. We know that when WVB and the team surrendered
>> >> >to the Americans, that one man that was present said that
>> >> >he seemed to act like WVB fancied himself as being some
>> >> >kind of hero or statesman, and that he eagerly let himself
>> >> >be photographed with individual Americans who wanted
>> >> >his picture made with them. That was told to a writer who
>> >> >wanted to report the event. But that man was telling what
>> >> >he thought that someone is thinking, and he did not really
>> >> >know what he was thinking of course and the man could
>> >> >have read the moment wrong.
>>
>> >> Could he? WvB was always a publicity seeker.
>>
>> >No, I think the man's words gave it away that he
>> >was speculating about what V.B. thought. He did not
>> >know what someone thinks.
>>
>> His actions showed he was a publicity seeker.
>>
>I don't know what he was way back when. I just know that when I met
>him, he was a very humble and
>considerate person.
For the last time - a passing chit-chat at a lecture is not meeting
him. And you still refuse to address the doubts that this lecture even
took place.
>He also didn't have to go out of
>his way to seek publicity, it came to him instead.
Well, no, that isn't really true until well in to the 1950s.
> When he was spoken
>to publicly/publically (both are correct)
Why introduce that red herring?
>, he sparkled. Most people
>like attention but not many know how to act when they get it. He
>apparently did.
>He simply did not seem to be shy.
Your point?
>>
>>
>> >I said she was a dental assistant, but she was a
>> >young dentist, not an assistant.
>>
>> So what? It is doubtful the event was true.
>>
>Soooo I was wanting to be accurate. It's in Wikipedia,
>which you usually trust.
Who does?
> Except, I suppose, when it does not suit
>you.
>>
>> >> >But one thing is for sure,
>> >> >if he had been in chains, the man would have told that
>> >> >for sure, but he never said such a thing.
>>
>> >> Abusing English again.
>>
>> >You don't like it because I started a sentence with "But,"
>>
>> Nope - that was the only part that actually made sense?
>>
>You didn't need a question mark on your sentence,
Actually, it did.
>if you are looking for perfection. "Nope" would not
>make it either.
Stupid woman.
nope
n exclamation informal variant of no.
>>
>> >which reflects spoken English that one might use in an
>> >oral conversation. It is the way we speak in posts,
>> >and you know it. You express your displeasure in a
>> >sentence fragment, though, if you are looking for
>> >perfection. "Abusing English again," is not a sentence,
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>No, you did not make a complete sentence,
Yes I did.
> and
>therefore it was a sentence fragment.
No, it was a statement. Complete and valid.
> So, if you
>demand perfection, then you will engender
>criticism. Usually not by me, obviously. I am only
>doing this to show you that you are claiming that
>someone is not correct, but doing so with words
>that are less than perfect, yourself.
Nope.
>>
>> >it's a fragment of one, and therefore considered to
>> >be incorrect English,
>>
>> Bloody rubbish.
>>
>Who are you trying to kid?
I'm trying to educate you. It is bloody hard work.
>>
>> > if it is perfection that you are
>> >seeking.
>>
>> From you I'm seeking things that actually make sense.
>>
>Well, then, it's odd that you would seek sense
>from someone that you think is so lacking.
There is a hope, maybe held in vain, that one day you will actually
stop lying and start making sense.
Is al that in any way relevant? No, of course not, just one of your
typical attempts at diversion.
>>
>Wernher Von Braun was against segregation in
>Alabama. In the book "Dr. Space, the life of
>Wernher von Braun, the authot, Bob Ward explains
>that when asked about the treatment of the forced
>laborers/concentration camp captives:
>" No I didn’t know about them [the death camps],
We know that to be a lie.
> but I suspected. And
>in my position I could have found out if I had wanted to, and I
>didn’t. And I despise myself for not doing so."
He does seem to have tried to cover up his past.
>So he did not like it because he didn't really get
>involved,
But we know, from the records and from his own letters, that he did
know.
>but as it seems he would have probably
>been shot if he did.
Evidence?
>Bob Ward also says about him, in the section of
>Ward's book about the 1960's...
>"that the very same man took time from the rocket work that gave his
>life meaning to push for desegregation in George Wallace's Alabama."
Didn't make much effort, in fact I can find no real record of his
efforts.
True, at that time massive amounts of federal money were being thrown
at Huntsville, and to safeguard that:-
[Quote]
Marshall's extraordinary technological achievements often overshadowed
the sociopolitical gains brought to Huntsville by the center. In the
early 1960s, the federal government threatened to shift Marshall
projects to other centers unless Alabama made progress in civil
rights, and Marshall's presence mitigated civil rights problems in
north Alabama. And while Gov. George Wallace preached segregation, and
Montgomery, Birmingham, and Selma erupted in violence, businessmen in
Huntsville sought to preserve federal contracts by avoiding racial
strife. The strategy paid off, and Huntsville became a New South
success story. High-tech companies proliferated, and the town
prospered. Its population doubled during the 1960s to more than
140,000. Despite these successes, questions and concerns lingered
about the degree to which von Braun and his German colleagues had
sympathized with the Nazi philosophy.
[End quote]
http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1047
>>
>I believe that he would have been killed for just
>having an iota of an inkling of a hint of an idea
>that was against Hitler. He had gotten into something
>that was way over his head.
Whatever he got into he did willingly and with his eyes wide open.
>>
>> > and "so what" is that he is known in my
>> >country for standing up for the rights of individuals,
>> >and being against any kind of ethnic persecution,
>> >That is the opposite of what Hitler's regime did.
>>
>> Since he was an enthusiastic Nazi, joining up freely long before it
>> became the "politically correct" thing to do, I find your claims hard
>> to believe without evidence. After all, you have been wrong so many
>> times in the past.
>>
>Here we go again, Bob. According to history which you
>need to read yourself, he was not an enthusiastic
>nazi.
According to the facts he was. He joined the party long before it
could be considered just expedience, ditto the SS.
> What I just said that he said above, he did not have to
>volunteer, but he was showing that he had
>not wanted to be involved in that portion of what was
>going on, and it has been said by someone that was
>there, which I quoted, that if he had done that he
>probably would have been shot on the spot.
What he SAID was totally irrelevant. A guilty man will nearly always
lie to avoid the consequences of his crimes.
Hohohohoho! You really are nuts.
>>
>You missed the point of why I had said this. You
>claimed that my country murdered people that
>were prisoners.
Correct.
>I was showing you the inconsistency
>of what you had claimed. You can't take one case
>where justice was not served and then say that the
>whole country was that way plus the government.
Your country is still, as we near the end of the first decade of the
21st century, committing state murder of prisoners. That is barbaric.
Only Singapore and Japan stand beside the USA among the developed
nations of the world. Your country killed 37 people in 2008 - hang
your head in shame.
>>
>> > though, he was
>> >an immigrant who became a citizen, and who gifted the world
>> >with his knowledge.
>>
>> But he was a war criminal.
>>
>No, he was not.
Well, yes he was.
> You are trying to blame what Hitler
>clearly did,
Hitler could have done nothing without his followers. As a follower
WvB, through his actions, became a war criminal.
> on someone else just because he was
>there and had to follow Hitler's orders or be killed.
No excuse.
>>
>> >> >That's
>> >> >what I believe and I believe it very strongly. It's a terrible
>> >> >thing that the man who was innocent had to die, but I don't
>> >> >think he died in vain because a lot of people after that
>> >> >resolved to always uphold the idea that a person is
>> >> >innocent until proved guilty.
>>
>> >> WvB has been proven guilty.
>>
>He was not proven guilty
He has been.
> and he said this himself
>in an interview with a French magazine that I have
>previously posted in which he said that the gov't
>of the USA had already cleared him.
We know that to be a blatant lie.
> You will not
>find our government refuting what he said publicly.
You will find out when the full papers are released.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Dan Luke
"Suzanne" <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4086a7a9-b70d-4d16...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 7, 7:02 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> "Suzanne" wrote:
>
> >> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>
> > Yeah, how about that. When are you going to tell us?
>
> I've already told you what I and paleontology think, dear: the dinosaurs
> were millions of years gone before the first creatures began to be trapped
> in La Brea. That's simple, it accords with the evidence.
>
And so, why are you bringing it up anyway?
Your continual question about why dinosaur
bones are not in the pits sounds like you are
trying to make out like I made that an issue.
That's called propaganda.
But you *did* make it an issue Suzanne:
"People assume that when all the water drained off
that was in Noah's global flood, it would leave a muddy flood
layer so thick on everything on earth. But since we know that
there are valleys and mountains on earth, is that very logical?
Suppose that you fill up a bathtub with some water, and then
into the water, stir in a mixture of dirt and some gravel large
enough so as not to go down your drain that would be caught
by a mesh guard. After the water drained off, you would
see that the debris would be deposited on the bottom of
the tub and only be approximately in the center of the
tub, forming a line along the direction of the water's
having drained in. The earth has such places where debris
would have been deposited and usually those places are
called a permian basin. In those areas are every kind of fossils.
The La Brea Tar Pits in California form such a place as
this also."
"...every kind of fossils" is what you said. Therefore, you have a problem
with the absence of dinosaur fossils at La Brea. .
Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
Suzanne
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
Another sine of your inability to read.
--
Bob.
josephus
that idea that in circumstance similar WvB was a German patriot. we
had American Patriots that built devices of enormous mass destruction.
and we dropped those devices on Nagasaki and Hieroshima. are we any
less guilty than WvB. He was a very ambitious engineer. and NAZI paid
him to build his dream. he built rockets that he wanted to go to the
moon. but the V2 was his price for a moon shot. So was he really a
dyed in the wool nazi or just an opportunist in a strange place. I
wonder what you would think of your great great grand parents owning
slaves. can you guarantee that those slave were all well treated?
my point is we paint NAZI high ranks as crimminals. most were, but to
paint everyone as Himmler or Goelbels is not rationally justified.
maybe he was a German and did the German thing. But it does not really
sound like he was running a brickworks. he was building something for
the war effort as a payment would get his moon shot. if any German were
to show too much favoritism to the slaves he would get be criticized by
those he wanted to please. and it sounds like VwB was a yes man and
told his bosses what he had to. Schindler was very secretive about what
he was doing with his slaves. HE told his bosses that he had higher than
normal losses. Schindler could do things that WvB could not the kinds
of thing were structurally different. The slaves hated the slavery and
the work. It is not reasonable to think that starving people would be
conducive to making them efficient. That part does not make sense. it
is however part of the holocaust. As a brilliant engineer WvB was
ambitious and an opportunist. His misfortune was that he was in NAZI
GERMANY. And Membership was not optional for those that wanted to make
new things.
He was not the only one working on war magic. he was building rockets.
the application of rockets is V2 Vengence. his rockets were successful.
much to our dismay. but that was war.
josephus
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I want to put forth a different idea.
You are welcome.
>that idea that in circumstance similar WvB was a German patriot. we
>had American Patriots that built devices of enormous mass destruction.
You are correct.
> and we dropped those devices on Nagasaki and Hieroshima. are we any
>less guilty than WvB.
Yes.
> He was a very ambitious engineer. and NAZI paid
>him to build his dream. he built rockets that he wanted to go to the
>moon. but the V2 was his price for a moon shot.
Valid point.
> So was he really a
>dyed in the wool nazi or just an opportunist in a strange place.
I think a lot of the latter and a little bit of the former. It could
be that hew just sold out, but I don't think that diminishes his
"crimes". In fact, in some ways, his sell out makes it worse in my
eyes.
> I
>wonder what you would think of your great great grand parents owning
>slaves. can you guarantee that those slave were all well treated?
Actually, with a fairly complete family tree, way back into the 1500s,
I can say there were no slave owners.
However, what my great great great grand children will think of me
using real human workers to do jobs is another thing.
>
>my point is we paint NAZI high ranks as crimminals. most were, but to
>paint everyone as Himmler or Goelbels is not rationally justified.
>maybe he was a German and did the German thing. But it does not really
>sound like he was running a brickworks. he was building something for
>the war effort as a payment would get his moon shot. if any German were
>to show too much favoritism to the slaves he would get be criticized by
>those he wanted to please. and it sounds like VwB was a yes man and
>told his bosses what he had to. Schindler was very secretive about what
>he was doing with his slaves. HE told his bosses that he had higher than
>normal losses. Schindler could do things that WvB could not the kinds
>of thing were structurally different. The slaves hated the slavery and
>the work. It is not reasonable to think that starving people would be
>conducive to making them efficient. That part does not make sense. it
>is however part of the holocaust. As a brilliant engineer WvB was
>ambitious and an opportunist. His misfortune was that he was in NAZI
>GERMANY. And Membership was not optional for those that wanted to make
>new things.
Membership certainly was at the time he joined.
>He was not the only one working on war magic. he was building rockets.
> the application of rockets is V2 Vengence. his rockets were successful.
My point is that he knew, from the outset, that the A4/V2 was a
missile. One that's accuracy was such that you could only aim it at a
city.
>
>
>much to our dismay. but that was war.
>
>josephus
--
Bob.
Burkhard
guy" who for all sorts of reasons fit the profile of soemoen who was to
become in Goldhagen's terminology a "willing accomplice", from his
upbringing, social environment, personal obsession etc. Put into
temptation and fell for it, and as a result of circumstances rather than
evil intent got involved into some pretty bad stuff. A better man would
have used his influence to help, he didn't, but (all too) few did. That
he got at least very close to committing crimes against humanity (as
defined in law, and comparisons those German users of slave labour who
were successfully prosecuted)was not evil design, but the result of
circumstances.
Though his marked lack of remorse and soul searching was noticeable. His
own church was little bit more honest in this respect in its post-war
naval gazing and the Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt, even though this to
arguably did nit go very far (as the Swiss bishops in particular
immediately noticed)
All in all though, nothing a real Christian who wants to evaluate Braun
should have major problems with . Such a person would really believe
that redemption remains always a possibility, no matter how bad the
past. Scuh a person would just means focussing on his later life and
the changes he made, while acknowledging past guilt.
Only when the attempt is made to make him smell of roses, and in the
course history is rewritten, I get...concerned. This involved
unsubstantiated attacks against the integrity of professional
historians, both German and others, belittling the experience of the
victims, plain "making things up" and the "Hitler made me do it" meme so
popular amongst parts of the extreme right in Germany.
Suzanne
I wonder if when a space rocket becomes
weaponized, if they rename it with a "V" in other
cases.
>
For the record if anyone wonders if the V-2 was
intended purely as a weapon, it was not, according
to the History channel in one of their documentaries
about UFO's of the Nazis, because the V-2 is the
first rocket to go into outer space. In order to reach space, the
angle would be straight up. The aim was
clearly for outer space, in other words. Now, in the
aiming of a rocket at a location on earth, it would
have been tested at an angle, rather than a totally
vertical position at launch. The most advanced of
the scientists in Germany did not want Hitler's
regime to have their secrets, and what Hitler
was able to get a hold of, he weaponized. When
Hitler came into power in '33, the older of the
scientists in Germany had an exodus. Some of
them came to America, like Einstein, and some of them went to France.
Einstein would have been
about 54 then, and Von Braun was only 20 or 21
in 1933.
>
Suzanne
Mike L
Burkhard wrote:
[...]
>
> Only when the attempt is made to make him smell of roses, and in the
> course history is rewritten, I get...concerned. This involved
> unsubstantiated attacks against the integrity of professional
> historians, both German and others, belittling the experience of the
> victims, plain "making things up" and the "Hitler made me do it" meme so
> popular amongst parts of the extreme right in Germany.
Quite so. But I feel we should always bear in mind that Nazi Germany
brought on itself something less creditable to the rest of "us". In
the middle of the century it offered a scapegoat for all our cruelties
and racism. The sad fact is that the Third Reich presented in
concentrated form, and put into practice, ideas which were common
currency almost everywhere. Germany, at in rate in the west, has
purged her guilt more thoroughly than we who claim innocence, and is
the more admirable for it.
--
Mike.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 8, 2:27 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > I have read that they even called the A-4 the
>> > V-2 because it means "vengeance."
>>
>> Vergeltung, yes.
>> This has caused some confusion,
>> for the Germans also used V-numbers
>> for different versions of the same thing.
>> (which the V1 and V2 were not)
>>
>> Jan
>>
>That's interesting additional information, thanks.
>I wonder if when a space rocket becomes
>weaponized, if they rename it with a "V" in other
>cases.
The A4, later renamed the V2, was designed - FROM DAY ONE - as a
weapon.
>>
>For the record if anyone wonders if the V-2 was
>intended purely as a weapon, it was not,
Liar!
>according
>to the History channel in one of their documentaries
>about UFO's of the Nazis,
Hohohohohoho!
>because the V-2 is the
>first rocket to go into outer space. In order to reach space, the
>angle would be straight up.
Don't be stupid.
> The aim was
>clearly for outer space, in other words.
Your ignorance is showing again. Have you ever seen a rocket take off?
>Now, in the
>aiming of a rocket at a location on earth, it would
>have been tested at an angle, rather than a totally
>vertical position at launch.
Idiot.
> The most advanced of
>the scientists in Germany did not want Hitler's
>regime to have their secrets, and what Hitler
>was able to get a hold of, he weaponized.
The V2 was designed as a weapon to kill civilians - learn to live with
that fact because it is not one you can change.
> When
>Hitler came into power in '33, the older of the
>scientists in Germany had an exodus. Some of
>them came to America, like Einstein, and some of them went to France.
>Einstein would have been
>about 54 then, and Von Braun was only 20 or 21
>in 1933.
So what?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
something that you said. You did not call it to my
attention in the last 25 posts if you were wanting me
to comment on something. Many of us now have to
use google to read the newsgroups since they have
been closed off from us through our servers. I am
not familiar with google enough to know if they print
all posts. So if something is terribly important to you,
unless you are just heckling me or something, you
may certainly ask me to comment on something if
I have not. Actually, when someone says something,
unless they ask for a comment, many of us probably
do read what they have said and don't always comment.
>
You also said "she probably doesn't have a reference."
But I do and I posted it before I answered this post.
>
> > And by the way I did give a reference.
>
> Re-read your own posts, and no, you did not.
>
because I had not yet had a chance to. So...
Yes, I did give a reference when asked for a
cite. The question was about Von Braun being
opposed to segregation. Here is what I wrote:
"Bob Ward also says about him, in the section of
Ward's book about the 1960's...
'that the very same man took time from the
rocket work that gave his life meaning to push
>
If that does not suffice, here is another one quoting
V.B. and Wallace.
"A year after NASA was created, in 1958, von Braun was
appointed chief of the Marshall Space Flight Center
(MSFC) in Huntsville, and was no longer working for the
army. Pressure was applied to NASA on von Braun to
hire more black engineers and technicians, but many were
reluctant to move to Alabama at that time. Von Braun
did not appear eager to get involved when Governor
George Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door to prevent
a black student from registering at the University of
Alabama, yet he publicly condemned segregation when a
black MSFC employee enrolled without incident at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville.
>
Not long afterward, Governor Wallace visited MSFC and
witnessed a rocket test. Von Braun addressed an
audience that included the governor, and stressed that it
was imperitive that Alabama move on from its
segregationalist past. After the speech, he chatted with
Wallace and asked the governor if he wanted to be
the first person on the Moon. Wallace replied, "Well,
better not. You fellows might not bring me back."
bwcitypaper.com/1editorialbody.lasso?...&-token.subpub= - 94k
>
> I don't know
>
> > what point you are making without a reference to
> > the post that you made it in.
>
> The fact that i cited in several posts both primary, archival material
> from Neufeld(and others) books, and their own analysis of it as well -
> but to no avail as you keep repeating your claims which are either
> totally unsubstantiated, provably wrong or based on vpn Braun's words
> only. The only response you aver gave to these academic studies was to
> attack the integrity of the authors - also something I pointed out in
> several posts.
>
you. It can happen. My intentions usually are not
to "attack" authors but if I don't agree with them
that isn't exactly what I would call "an attack," as a
rule.
>
I've been told that sometimes google does not
print a post immediately. I don't know if that is
true or not. I did have a few that did not appear
right away so far, but now most of them do.
>
No, my statements are not unsubstantiated, but I don't
give references for every single word that I say. Neither
do others. But all of this aside, what is it that you
think Neufeld said against Von Braun being against
segregation? I have not read his book yet.
>
> >You might also look
> > at this reply to the book review about this book
> > by a person on this webpage.http://www.amazon.com/review/R2NBQ89759RY5G/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2NB...
>
> "a person?" On a website? So how do you know that he has the knowledge
> to make this assessment? If you want proper reviews you need the
> relevant academic journals. As I posted before, this book won two
> prestigious prices awarded by the relevant learned societies.
>
or amazon invited people to comment. Did you
read what was said?
>
> There are a lot of leading biographies about his
>
> > life.
>
> And yet you don't use them as evidence to suport your claims. Now,
> having actually read most of them, I'd be quite happy to discuss any
> claims they make that prop up your rewritten history - I personally
> can't see any.
>
history concerning whether or not the first
president of the USA, George Washington,
really chopped down the cherry tree? The
modern version is that he didn't do that, and
the proof that they think that they have is that
they can't find any proof that he did. That's
what you are up against with all the material
that you have read about WVB, that kind of
thinking.
>
> > NASA also writes a biography that is available
> > online. It seems that they would have the best
> > sources.
>
Suzanne
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Aug 7, 7:02 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> >> "Suzanne" wrote:
>
> >> >> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>
> >> > Yeah, how about that. When are you going to tell us?
>
> >> I've already told you what I and paleontology think, dear: the dinosaurs
> >> were millions of years gone before the first creatures began to be trapped
> >> in La Brea. That's simple, it accords with the evidence.
>
> >And so, why are you bringing it up anyway?
> >Your continual question about why dinosaur
> >bones are not in the pits sounds like you are
> >trying to make out like I made that an issue.
>
> He is trying to find out if you have learned the
> answer, You have,
> after all, been given it enough times.
>
he's trying to be.
>
> >That's called propaganda.
>
> No it isn't.
>
>
> >> Your problem is far more complex. You have to explain why your belief in
> >> the coexistance of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna did not produce
> >> dinosaurs in the tar pits.
>
> >Apparently my complex problem is you.
>
> No it isn't.
>
for me.
>
> >It's not logical that if dinosaurs existed in
> >Glen Rose, Texas along side of man, if
> >they did, that they should also have to be
> >in California in the La Brea Tar Pits.
>
> Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. They never c0-existed with
> man or any of the large mammals.
>
It's a form of circular reasoning called a
"logical fallacy."
http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning
It would be like saying
If men and women coexisted in the Inca tribe.
But only women existed in the Amazon tribe.
Therefore men and women never coexisted in the
Inca tribe.
>
> >> So, why didn't it? I'm sure many here are eager to hear your explanation.
>
> >It's not a proper question. Ask it of someone
> >that says that they should be in the tar pits.
>
> He is trying to find out if you understand why they are > not found in
> the pits. Now answer the question.
>
>
Suzanne
Wombat
It's a simple enough question.
Wombat
Suzanne
> "Suzanne" <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
time, would not have to be every animal that lived
during man's time on earth, since Noah was not
the earliest kind of man. Man lived long before
Noah lived on the earth.
>
> Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
>
understand I suppose, that the animals being
spoken of lived in Noah's time, since we were
talking about Noah's flood. Is there any reason
that someone would think that all animals that
existed in Adam's time had to still exist in
Noah's time?
>
But this was not the point that had been made by
me. What he had been talking about is the claim
by many that if Noah's flood existed, there should
have to be a flood layer all over the earth. But
I was saying that a global flood would not drain
off evenly all over the earth, because there would
be places where the water would seep into the
ground as in the permian basins, and there would
be other places rather barren since some of the
water that had been on them would be swept away,
like the water in a bathtub, as it follows a central
path, leaving much debris along the path, but not
so much on the periphery.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 8, 8:55 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>> >On Aug 7, 7:02 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> "Suzanne" wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>>
>> >> > Yeah, how about that. When are you going to tell us?
>>
>> >> I've already told you what I and paleontology think, dear: the dinosaurs
>> >> were millions of years gone before the first creatures began to be trapped
>> >> in La Brea. That's simple, it accords with the evidence.
>>
>> >And so, why are you bringing it up anyway?
>> >Your continual question about why dinosaur
>> >bones are not in the pits sounds like you are
>> >trying to make out like I made that an issue.
>>
>> He is trying to find out if you have learned the
>> answer, You have,
>> after all, been given it enough times.
>>
>He's trying to be obnoxious is what
>he's trying to be.
I'll repeat, since you seem to have failed to read it. He is trying to
find out if you have learned the answer to the question. You have,
after all, been given said answer enough times.
>>
>> >That's called propaganda.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>Yes it is.
Liar!
propaganda
n noun
1 information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used
to promote a political cause or point of view. Øthe dissemination of
such information.
2 (Propaganda) a committee of Roman Catholic cardinals
responsible for foreign missions.
ORIGIN
Italian, from modern Latin congregatio de propaganda fide
'congregation for propagation of the faith'.
>>
>> >> Your problem is far more complex. You have to explain why your belief in
>> >> the coexistance of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna did not produce
>> >> dinosaurs in the tar pits.
>>
>> >Apparently my complex problem is you.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>Since you are not me, you cannot speak
>for me.
Since we no how much you lie I can correct you.
>>
>> >It's not logical that if dinosaurs existed in
>> >Glen Rose, Texas along side of man, if
>> >they did, that they should also have to be
>> >in California in the La Brea Tar Pits.
>>
>> Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. They never c0-existed with
>> man or any of the large mammals.
>>
>Maybe you don't understand what he is claiming.
>It's a form of circular reasoning called a
>"logical fallacy."
>http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning
>It would be like saying
>If men and women coexisted in the Inca tribe.
>But only women existed in the Amazon tribe.
>Therefore men and women never coexisted in the
>Inca tribe.
You really are VERY stupid. He, and I, are saying nothing of the sort.
Now answer the question. Why are there no dinosaur fossils in the La
Brea Tar Pits?
>>
>> >> So, why didn't it? I'm sure many here are eager to hear your explanation.
>>
>> >It's not a proper question. Ask it of someone
>> >that says that they should be in the tar pits.
>>
>> He is trying to find out if you understand why they are > not found in
>> the pits. Now answer the question.
>>
>No he isn't. He's been answered and he knows it.
But NOT by you. You have never answered the question correctly. Until
you do you do not pass the test.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
"Long before"?????
How much longer?
>>
>> Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
>>
>There simply was no discrepancy. You didn't
>understand I suppose, that the animals being
>spoken of lived in Noah's time, since we were
>talking about Noah's flood. Is there any reason
>that someone would think that all animals that
>existed in Adam's time had to still exist in
>Noah's time?
Why not? According to your favourite fairy tales it was only a few
generations between the two.
>>
>But this was not the point that had been made by
>me. What he had been talking about is the claim
>by many that if Noah's flood existed, there should
>have to be a flood layer all over the earth. But
>I was saying that a global flood would not drain
>off evenly all over the earth, because there would
>be places where the water would seep into the
>ground as in the permian basins, and there would
>be other places rather barren since some of the
>water that had been on them would be swept away,
>like the water in a bathtub, as it follows a central
>path, leaving much debris along the path, but not
>so much on the periphery.
But we don't find those deposits.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
alextangent
> >I'm not sure what you are asking.
>
Ye Old One
There are a lot of posts in this thread. Why this "25 post" limit?
Where do you get that from?
> Many of us now have to
>use google to read the newsgroups since they have
>been closed off from us through our servers.
Nope. There is no one single person on the net that is forced to use
google. There are many news servers out there, most very cheap and
some even free.
>I am
>not familiar with google enough to know if they print
>all posts. So if something is terribly important to you,
>unless you are just heckling me or something, you
>may certainly ask me to comment on something if
>I have not.
He is.
> Actually, when someone says something,
>unless they ask for a comment, many of us probably
>do read what they have said and don't always comment.
Or, in your case, fail to read.
>>
>You also said "she probably doesn't have a reference."
>But I do and I posted it before I answered this post.
>>
>> > And by the way I did give a reference.
>>
>> Re-read your own posts, and no, you did not.
>>
>You are correct that you wrote YOO right back,
>because I had not yet had a chance to. So...
>Yes, I did give a reference when asked for a
>cite. The question was about Von Braun being
>opposed to segregation. Here is what I wrote:
> "Bob Ward also says about him, in the section of
> Ward's book about the 1960's...
> 'that the very same man took time from the
> rocket work that gave his life meaning to push
> for desegregation in George Wallace's Alabama.' "
That seems to be a gross exaggeration.
>>
>If that does not suffice, here is another one quoting
>V.B. and Wallace.
>"A year after NASA was created, in 1958, von Braun was
>appointed chief of the Marshall Space Flight Center
>(MSFC) in Huntsville, and was no longer working for the
>army. Pressure was applied to NASA on von Braun to
>hire more black engineers and technicians, but many were
>reluctant to move to Alabama at that time. Von Braun
>did not appear eager to get involved when Governor
>George Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door to prevent
>a black student from registering at the University of
>Alabama, yet he publicly condemned segregation when a
>black MSFC employee enrolled without incident at the
>University of Alabama in Huntsville.
>>
>Not long afterward, Governor Wallace visited MSFC and
>witnessed a rocket test. Von Braun addressed an
>audience that included the governor, and stressed that it
>was imperitive that Alabama move on from its
>segregationalist past. After the speech, he chatted with
>Wallace and asked the governor if he wanted to be
>the first person on the Moon. Wallace replied, "Well,
>better not. You fellows might not bring me back."
>bwcitypaper.com/1editorialbody.lasso?...&-token.subpub= - 94k
Given the errors in that, and the lack of a cite, you will have to do
better.
anyone can write a review for Amazon, I've done several.
> Did you
>read what was said?
Yes, was there something there you thought helped your case?
>>
>> There are a lot of leading biographies about his
>>
>> > life.
>>
>> And yet you don't use them as evidence to suport your claims. Now,
>> having actually read most of them, I'd be quite happy to discuss any
>> claims they make that prop up your rewritten history - I personally
>> can't see any.
>>
>Maybe you would like to rewrite something of
>history concerning whether or not the first
>president of the USA, George Washington,
>really chopped down the cherry tree? The
>modern version is that he didn't do that, and
>the proof that they think that they have is that
>they can't find any proof that he did. That's
>what you are up against with all the material
>that you have read about WVB, that kind of
>thinking.
There is also no evidence that Washington strangled his mother in a
fit of rage when he was seven years old. So by your logic he must
have.
>>
>> > NASA also writes a biography that is available
>> > online. It seems that they would have the best
>> > sources.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Burkhard
That is what is usually knwon as "unsubstantiated"
Neither
> do others. But all of this aside, what is it that you
> think Neufeld said against Von Braun being against
> segregation? I have not read his book yet.
>
Nothing. That was exactly my point, if you read my post. Neufeld
correctly and in detail describes Braun's oposition against
segregation, So your claim that he is biased gets into trouble. Why
believe him on Braun on segregation, but dismiss his extensive
analysisof involvement with the Nazis? (_without_ substantiating in
any detail your claims, i'm still waiting e.g for a referenc where I
can find that investigation that "exonerated him with flying colours")
> > >You might also look
> > > at this reply to the book review about this book
> > > by a person on this webpage.http://www.amazon.com/review/R2NBQ89759RY5G/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2NB...
>
> > "a person?" On a website? So how do you know that he has the knowledge
> > to make this assessment? If you want proper reviews you need the
> > relevant academic journals. As I posted before, this book won two
> > prestigious prices awarded by the relevant learned societies.
>
> The person that made this proper review invited
> or amazon invited people to comment. Did you
> read what was said?
>
Yes. And I did not find any objective fact stated there that showed
neufeld wrong, just that he "did nit like it". As with all amazon
reviews, it is not possible to assess the qualification of the
reviewer. with other words, as a source to form an opinion on the
accuracy of an academic work they are pretty useless.
> > There are a lot of leading biographies about his
>
> > > life.
>
> > And yet you don't use them as evidence to suport your claims. Now,
> > having actually read most of them, I'd be quite happy to discuss any
> > claims they make that prop up your rewritten history - I personally
> > can't see any.
>
> Maybe you would like to rewrite something of
> history concerning whether or not the first
> president of the USA, George Washington,
> really chopped down the cherry tree? The
> modern version is that he didn't do that, and
> the proof that they think that they have is that
> they can't find any proof that he did. That's
> what you are up against with all the material
> that you have read about WVB, that kind of
> thinking.
>
Not really - which you would see if you actually read any of the
studies I cited. hey are based on extensive research in the German
archives, interviews with survivors, court documents, the documents
released by the allies. And again, your post implies an allegation
against the professional competence and integrity of these historians.
J. J. Lodder
> Burkhard wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Only when the attempt is made to make him smell of roses, and in the
> > course history is rewritten, I get...concerned. This involved
> > unsubstantiated attacks against the integrity of professional
> > historians, both German and others, belittling the experience of the
> > victims, plain "making things up" and the "Hitler made me do it" meme so
> > popular amongst parts of the extreme right in Germany.
>
> Quite so. But I feel we should always bear in mind that Nazi Germany
> brought on itself something less creditable to the rest of "us". In
> the middle of the century it offered a scapegoat for all our cruelties
> and racism.
That is what I have been objecting to in this thread.
The facile reasoning:
They were the baddies, so we have been the goodies,
whatever we did.
(Wernher von Braun a war criminal for bombing London,
Arthur Harris doing the right thing when bombing German civilians)
> The sad fact is that the Third Reich presented in
> concentrated form, and put into practice, ideas which were common
> currency almost everywhere.
Who invented the concentration camp to begin with?
> Germany, at in rate in the west, has
> purged her guilt more thoroughly than we who claim innocence, and is
> the more admirable for it.
In a limited way, yes.
They at least tried to face their 'unbewaltigte vergangenheit',
and they did make honest attemps at 'wiedergutmachung'.
The Brits did make some steps in the right direction.
Queen Elizabeth has been to Dresden,
and a British fund has contributed substantially
towards reconstruction of the 'Frauenkirche' there.
(with Elizabeth according to rumour supplying
the gold for the cross out of her private means)
Americans otoh often seem to remain stuck in attitudes like:
Those Japs should be grateful to us for nuking them,
for if we hadn't we would have killed more of them.
(despite many of them having uneasy feelings about it,
judging by the many excuses or it that circulate)
It will be a long time still
before an American president can go to Hiroshima.
(but I think it is inevitable that it will happen,
sometime in the future)
Jan
Suzanne
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:42:11 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
rest of his life certainly shows blazingly.
>
> >and the Gestapo always ready to
> >do Hitler's instructions. Read this:
> >"When asked if von Braun could have protested against the brutal
> >treatment of the slave laborers, von Braun team member Konrad
> >Dannenberg told The Huntsville Times, 'If he had done it, in my
> >opinion, he would have been shot on the spot.' "
> >http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Wernher_von_Braun
>
> Bloody rubbish, he was considered highly important to the war effort -
> he could have got away with a lot.
>
him down.
>
>
> >> >And what makes you think that you
> >> >know what he did, or didn't do, during his time
> >> >there?
>
> >> It is called history. You should study it some time.
>
> >I read history, and the history says the above.
>
> The history convicts WvB on the evidence.
>
>
> > But
> >you consider things that don't fit what you want them to say as being
> >some kind of plot.
>
> I consider you to be a liar based on the evidence from so many > of your
> posts.
>
saying such things as that. So what else is new?
>
> >> >> > Hitler did those things. He
> >> >> >did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
> >> >> >Hitler did that..
>
> >> >> The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
> >> >> deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
>
> >> >No. Hiler signed an order that the V-2 would be used as
> >> >a weapon and that was Hitler's idea.
>
> >> The V2 was authorized for use by Hitler, of course. But it was
> >> designed as a weapon from day one - otherwise why would the military
> >> have paid for the years of development?
>
> >You've made this claim and have been corrected about
> >it and people also other than myself have told you
> >this is not correct.
>
> Liar!
>
>
> > I can tell you that at Peenemunde, although the
> >army insisted on some occasions of packing the V-2 with explosives to
> >test it, usually they
> >were more interested in how it would launch into outer
> >space,
>
> Liar!
>
> The V2 was never designed as anything other than a weapon of terror.
>
rocket to ever go into outer space. It would not
need to be tested in outer space if is was meant to
be a weapon.
>
> >and that is proved by the fact that started
> >launching baloons and rockets with scientific instruments instead of
> >explosives in them.
>
> Wrong, as usual. All the instruments launched were designed to tell
> them more about the effects of the atmosphere on flight dynamics.
> There were not, at least from 1940 on, doing any form of research into
> space travel - they were designing a missile with the sole aim of
> hitting civilians.
>
Von Braun had designs on going to the Moon,
of man going to Mars, especially, and on the
construction and launch of a space station.
>
> >They seemed more interested in what happened to a
> >rocket when it went way far up through the atmosphere,
>
> Well of course they were you dumbo - it had to do that in order to
> reach its target.
>
that he had, when he dropped the feather.
>
You have a little bit of a problem. A while back
you didn't seem to allow that the V-2 would be
used for space, and now you embrace it.
But, of course, you supply that it only had to
have been for evil and for learning about the
atmosphere for targeting ideas.
>
Your problem is that if they were trying to figure
out the upper atmosphere, they did not have
to go into outer space, beyond the atmosphere,
in order to test the rockets for attacking a place
on the earth. Furthermore, when a rocket goes
up, it is traveling vertically, but from earth it
appears to arc and go east. That's because of
the turning of the earth after the rocket is
launched. When the V-2 was weaponized, the
target was England, which was to the west of
them, not the east of them. In order for it to
reach Hitler's goal, it would have to be tested
in a an attitude closer to horizontal but with
room allowance in the angle for the proper
arched trajectory. That testing on a more
horizontal launch was done later. It was done
when Hitler decided to weaponize the V-2.
>
> > than
> >in seeing how it would explode, or hit a ground target.
>
> Just how wrong can you get. Most firings carried dummy war heads -
> essential to the balance of the rocket.
>
explosives packed in. Usually they were not
tested that way because of the cost.
>
> >In fact, it's known that many of the V-2's did not hit
> >their targets and some didn't even explode.
>
> True. Poor design in part, plus a lot of sabotage.
>
>
> > Some were filled with
> >paper propaganda trying to intimidate the
> >civilians.
>
> True, but so what - that is not what they were designed for. The V2
> was designed to deliver high explosives to a city.
>
>
> >> >> > It wasn't even until near the end of the war
> >> >> >that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
> >> >> >rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.
>
> >> >> WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
> >> >> no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
> >> >> civilians.
>
> >> >It is well known that Wernher Von Braun had his head
> >> >in the clouds, looking up at the heavens, beholding the
> >> >glory of the moon and stars and that he wanted to give
> >> >them to the world. All that he accomplished shows that.
>
> >> That does not change the well known fact that WvB designed, built,
> >> tested and then mass produced a weapon that had no battlefield use,
> >> designed from the outset to kill civilians. Please address that issue.
>
> >I have addressed this issue.
>
> You have attempted to - but failed.
>
was for space travel. Hitler weaponized it. It's the first
rocke to go into outer space. Your claim is that even
that was for weapons. If Hitler had not been there, the
German technology would have been ahead in the
space race.
>
> >He was doing what he was ordered to do,
>
> And as a good Nazi he carried out his orders with gusto.
>
said that were there then, like the one that said
that if he protested the forced labor he believed that
V.B. would have been shot.
>
> >and death was what would have happened to him if he didn't. It's well-
> >known that he
> >was against what Hitler was doing
>
> No it is not. He became a Nazi of his own free will and he
> joined the
> SS freely.
>
to several witnesses. You, on the other hand, have
no proof stating why he was labeled as one, only
that he was.
>
> > and that he said
> >he was surprised the rocket worked perfectly but that
> >it hit the wrong planet.
>
> There is no real evidence he said that.
>
NASA:
"The Like Television History channel proudly presents,
This Day In History - October 21! On October 21, 1959,
Dr. Wernher Von Braun arrives at NASA. Von Braun was
only 25 when he masterminded the V-2 rocket for Nazi
Germany. When the first V-2's struc London in 1944,
Von Braun said it worked perfectly but hit the wrong
planet."
>
The LikeTelevision™ History channel proudly presents, This Day In
History - October 21! On October 21, 1959, Dr. Werner Von Braun
arrives at NASA. Von Braun was only 25 when he masterminded the V-2
rocket for Nazi Germany. When the first V-2's struck London in 1944,
Von Braun said it worked perfectly but hit the wrong planet."
tesla.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/tuner.php?...&theme=history
>
> >It is well-known that he was thrown into jail
> >for not wanting to comply with Hitler,
>
> That is a lie you have been corrected on many times. Why do you keep
> repeating it?
>
>
> > and that he would rather be
> >building space vehicles.
> >It's well-known that he had to pick forced labor workers
>
> No, he did not "have" to do it, he was a designer, and engineer.
>
our governent what they asked about this.
He did not hold it back that he had to pick
forced labor workers on several occasions.
>
> > and that he
> >did not hold back telling the USA this when
> >he was asked,
>
> Because they already knew. He didn't have to tell them anything.
>
that he didn't have to tell because the government
already knew. You are contradicting yourself.
>
> > and it is well-known that when Hitler used his rocket
> >for a weapon that he said that it was
> >his "darkest hour."
>
> No, again, there is no real evidence that was ever said.
>
Wernher von Braun Biography (1912-1977)
"The rocket was later renamed the V-2 (Vengeance Weapon 2)and used
against Great Britain, beginning on September 7, 1944.
'When I heard about this,' von Braun later recounted, 'it was the
darkest hour of my life.'
www.madehow.com/inventorbios/56/Wernher-von-Braun.html - 7k
>
> >But to you that is all a deep plot.
> >He obviously did not like what Hitler was doing.
>
> We have an expression where I come from "Tell that to a dead > donkey
> and he'll kick your brains out" which I think fits very well in your
> case.
>
something is not true and you get shown
website after website.
>
> >> >> > It's also a fact
> >> >> >that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
> >> >> >rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
> >> >> >forcing them to do.
>
> >> >> No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
> >> >> most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
> >> >> believe that one snippet.
>
> >> >Also, America is formed from immigrants who came to this
> >> >country for various reasons, one of which is political assylum.
>
> >> Why change the subject?
>
> >I didn't change the subject.
>
> Yes you did.
>
the fact that I didn't.
>
> >I was answering what
> >you had said.
>
> No you were not.
>
> > You make the claim that it was a
> >plot that fed the public lies about WVB in order
> >that they would be more receptive to him after
> >the war when he came to America.
>
> That is known to be 100% true.
>
are shown things and you go right back to them,
and make the same claims again.
>
> >> >People do not have to lie in order to receive such as that.
> >> >We have your country's beautiful red-headed duchess
> >> >living here that your country's media trashed.
>
> >> Hohohoho!
>
> >Yeah, well, that's something to think about. We
> >love her and think that your country was really,
> >really harsh on her.
>
> You really are very stupid. She is much liked in the UK, though in
> recent years she does spend too much time in the USA. I've met her
> twice, one at a press launch for one of her books and another time
> when she was visiting the city.
>
magazines and read what your press said.
It was in our papers. Most of us could not
get over how unkind they were to both of
those girls. If you say they are kindly to her
now, I'm glad to hear that. It's nice that you
could meet her. I like her, personally.
>
> >They were so harsh also on
> >Diana.
>
> You do talk some bloody rubbish!
>
> >I remember she cut her hair one time and
> >your newspapers referred to it as her "latest
> >short sharp shock."
>
> So? She was a very public figure, she revelled in attention as it
> allowed her to do her charity work much better. Sadly I never
> met her.
>
But certainly not the negative attention. I am sad for
you, too, that you never met her. Since you are from
there, I am not sure if you know how the rest of the
world mourned for her, too, when she died. In America
people broke into tears when we heard about what
happened at the end.
>
> >And she was absolutely
> >gorgeous, no matter what she did with her hair.
>
> Well, no, she did not always have the sense to know what
> worked and
> what didn't - but that is women for you.
>
choose great things. She spent part of every
week planning her wardrobe. Because of her
England's designers became very famoust in
the rest of the world.
>
> >> >We know of
> >> >her misdeeds
>
> >> She was never a war criminal.
>
> >Sounds to me like the beautiful red headed duchess was more like the
> >victim of a media war, before she
> >ever made mistakes.
>
> Rubbish.
>
>
Suzanne
TomS
<b50a3c79-6170-4415...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."
[...snip...]
>> Maybe you would like to rewrite something of
>> history concerning whether or not the first
>> president of the USA, George Washington,
>> really chopped down the cherry tree? The
>> modern version is that he didn't do that, and
>> the proof that they think that they have is that
>> they can't find any proof that he did. That's
>> what you are up against with all the material
>> that you have read about WVB, that kind of
>> thinking.
>>
>Not really - which you would see if you actually read any of the
>studies I cited. hey are based on extensive research in the German
>archives, interviews with survivors, court documents, the documents
>released by the allies. And again, your post implies an allegation
>against the professional competence and integrity of these historians.
[...snip...]
I wonder whether any scholarly biography of Washington says that he
did not chop down the cherry tree?
Yes, popular works do. And yes, scholarly works may bother to note
the origins of the legend. But would any historian in a serious
work make the positive claim that Washington did not chop down the
cherry tree? I suggest no more than they would make the positive
claim that Washington did not do lots of other things for which
there is no evidence.
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
J. J. Lodder
> On Aug 8, 2:27 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have read that they even called the A-4 the
> > > V-2 because it means "vengeance."
> >
> > Vergeltung, yes.
> > This has caused some confusion,
> > for the Germans also used V-numbers
> > for different versions of the same thing.
> > (which the V1 and V2 were not)
> >
> > Jan
> >
> That's interesting additional information, thanks.
> I wonder if when a space rocket becomes
> weaponized, if they rename it with a "V" in other
> cases.
You are being silly.
American space rockets originated
as weapons for mass murdering Russians.
(in the name of defense)
Weapon first, then satellite launcher.
> For the record if anyone wonders if the V-2 was
> intended purely as a weapon, it was not, according
> to the History channel in one of their documentaries
> about UFO's of the Nazis, because the V-2 is the
> first rocket to go into outer space. In order to reach space, the
> angle would be straight up. The aim was
> clearly for outer space, in other words. Now, in the
> aiming of a rocket at a location on earth, it would
> have been tested at an angle, rather than a totally
> vertical position at launch.
Big guns are also often tested (near) vertically.
Does that make them peaceful and not intended as a weapon?
FYI, Saddam Hussein's big gun originated as HARP.
(High Altitude Research Project)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP>
For some strange reason the Mossad
(if it was them that did it)
didn't quite see as just a harmless bit
of pure science for reaching outer space.
Ballistic misiles otoh are usually fired vertically too.
(o avoid the worst of the atmosphere)
They don't vector sideways untill well up.
Does that make them less of a weapon too?
Jan
John S. Wilkins
> "On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT), in article
> <b50a3c79-6170-4415...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
> stated..."
> >
> >On 10 Aug, 05:51, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [...snip...]
> >> Maybe you would like to rewrite something of
> >> history concerning whether or not the first
> >> president of the USA, George Washington,
> >> really chopped down the cherry tree? The
> >> modern version is that he didn't do that, and
> >> the proof that they think that they have is that
> >> they can't find any proof that he did. That's
> >> what you are up against with all the material
> >> that you have read about WVB, that kind of
> >> thinking.
> >>
> >Not really - which you would see if you actually read any of the
> >studies I cited. hey are based on extensive research in the German
> >archives, interviews with survivors, court documents, the documents
> >released by the allies. And again, your post implies an allegation
> >against the professional competence and integrity of these historians.
> [...snip...]
>
> I wonder whether any scholarly biography of Washington says that he
> did not chop down the cherry tree?
I first heard this from a historian. But it was as an example of bad
history.
>
> Yes, popular works do. And yes, scholarly works may bother to note
> the origins of the legend. But would any historian in a serious
> work make the positive claim that Washington did not chop down the
> cherry tree? I suggest no more than they would make the positive
> claim that Washington did not do lots of other things for which
> there is no evidence.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
TomS
<1j494la.1czk84lrp9xnbN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."
>
>TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> "On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT), in article
>> <b50a3c79-6170-4415...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
>> stated..."
>> >
>> >On 10 Aug, 05:51, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [...snip...]
>> >> Maybe you would like to rewrite something of
>> >> history concerning whether or not the first
>> >> president of the USA, George Washington,
>> >> really chopped down the cherry tree? The
>> >> modern version is that he didn't do that, and
>> >> the proof that they think that they have is that
>> >> they can't find any proof that he did. That's
>> >> what you are up against with all the material
>> >> that you have read about WVB, that kind of
>> >> thinking.
>> >>
>> >Not really - which you would see if you actually read any of the
>> >studies I cited. hey are based on extensive research in the German
>> >archives, interviews with survivors, court documents, the documents
>> >released by the allies. And again, your post implies an allegation
>> >against the professional competence and integrity of these historians.
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> I wonder whether any scholarly biography of Washington says that he
>> did not chop down the cherry tree?
>
>history.
I don't understand what you wrote.
You are saying that a historian gave an example of bad history.
What is that example?
1) "George Washington chopped down the cherry tree."
2) "George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree."
3) "There is specific cherry tree that we know about whether George
Washington chopped it down or not."
4) "History is concerned with the question about whether George
Washington chopped down a specific cherry tree."
John S. Wilkins
5) Parson Weems made up the story about George Washington and the cherry
tree. The story is repeated without the sources being checked.
>
>
> >>
> >> Yes, popular works do. And yes, scholarly works may bother to note
> >> the origins of the legend. But would any historian in a serious
> >> work make the positive claim that Washington did not chop down the
> >> cherry tree? I suggest no more than they would make the positive
> >> claim that Washington did not do lots of other things for which
> >> there is no evidence.
> >
> >
--
Burkhard
>
> > Bloody rubbish, he was considered highly important to the war effort -
> > he could have got away with a lot.
>
> No, Bob, not against Hitler. He would have hunted
> him down.
>
This is rather contradicted by the studies in the use of slave labour
in Nazi Germany - people with much less cloud were able to giuve
considerable protection to their workers (even though few of course
went as far as Schindler did)
see in particular
Mark Spoerer: Zwangsarbeit unter dem Hakenkreuz. Ausländische
Zivilarbeiter, Kriegsgefangene und Häftlinge im Deutschen Reich und im
besetzten Europa 1938-1945. Stuttgart/München 2001
Jan might want to comment on B.A. Sijes's book - I read it a long time
ago when my Dutch was better, but I htink it came to come to a similar
conclusion
This was a commercial enterprise. As long as the SS got either their
money (when they worked for civilian contractors) or the work was
done, they did not care what happened to the workers, which gave
individual businesses quite a lot of leeway to protect them.
(on the commercial aspect, see Michael Thad Allen's 2002 book on "the
Business of Genocide")
There were exceptions when the slave labourers were designated to
"extinction by labour, which were of course primarily Jewish and Roma
slaves. but they were not prominently involved in Mittlebau Dora,
which after 42 were primarily political prisoners and hostages form
the occupied countries.
> > >> >And what makes you think that you
> > >> >know what he did, or didn't do, during his time
> > >> >there?
Well, the archives they kept , the correspondence recovered etc gives
you a good picture.
>
> > >> >> > Hitler did those things. He
> > >> >> >did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
> > >> >> >Hitler did that..
>
> > >> >> The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
> > >> >> deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
>
> > >> >No. Hiler signed an order that the V-2 would be used as
> > >> >a weapon and that was Hitler's idea.
>
> > >> The V2 was authorized for use by Hitler, of course. But it was
> > >> designed as a weapon from day one - otherwise why would the military
> > >> have paid for the years of development?
>
> > >You've made this claim and have been corrected about
> > >it and people also other than myself have told you
> > >this is not correct.
>
> > Liar!
>
> Uh-huh.
>
Well, depends what you mean with "designed as weapon from day one".
The background for the V2 development was indeed space travel. If you
want to trace quickly the intellectual pre-history, it all started
with Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's earlier work, The Exploration of Cosmic
Space by Means of Reaction Devices. This influenced in turn Julius
Oberth, who was going to become Braun's PhD supervisor. He was also
deeply influenced by the Jules Verne novels, and undoubtedly, one of
his aims was space travel. However, he also spotted the military
potential very early on, in 1917.
One of the lessons he learned the hard way between 1917 and 1938 was
that it was much easier to get funding for military research than
civilian application, so he went for it - and Germany was willing to
pay. So in 38, he left his native Romania to settle permanently in
Germany. Oberth was awarded for his role in developing the A4 the
Kriegsverdienstkreuz I Klasse mit Schwertern. Braun's own career was
pretty similar: initial interest in space exploration, realisation
that only the military could be interested to fund it
Von Braun and another young scientist, Nebel, had been students of
Oberth, whose contacts to the military eventually resulted in an offer
of a development grant. Walter Dornberger, captain of the Artillery,
then got the first independent grant for Braun. Braun's PhD was
considered army research, and kept classified by the army until 1960
when it was considered redundant. (Walter Dornberger: Peenemünde. Die
Geschichte der V-Waffen. Ullstein Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, 12. Aufl.
2001)
Nebel, by the way, refused to take the money as it would have
compromised his ideal of civilian space travel.
So one could say that even though the motivation to go into this field
at all was space travel, but that all the rocket development, from the
very early stages and long before the war, was run by the military, to
military specifications and with the aim of developing a weapon.
Nothing necessarily wrong with this, of course (well depends), but the
claim that he worked at any point in time on civilian space travel is
just not true, all his employed life prior to 45 was paid by the army,
and was weapons development for the army.
Hitler, by the way was initially rather underimpressed. He called the
A4 rocket (as it still was then) "nothing more but an expensive
artillerty shell" (Roy Irons, Hitler's terror weapons: The price of
vengeance, p. 181)
It was however a report by Dornberger and von Braun to the Long-
Range Bombardment Commission that concluded that the A4 was now
capable of military deployment that changed his mind and made him
commit more resources into the use - tat was when the re designation
to V2 happened. (Neubfeld, op cit p. 101).
> > > I can tell you that at Peenemunde, although the
> > >army insisted on some occasions of packing the V-2 with explosives to
> > >test it, usually they
> > >were more interested in how it would launch into outer
> > >space,
Rocket development in Peenemeunde, an army facility after all, was
oriented towards military use from the word go. Since 1936, the
ability to carry 1 ton of explosives for 250 miles was part of the
official design specifications
(see for archival references: Uli Jungbluth: Hitlers Geheimwaffen im
Westerwald. Zum Einsatz der V-Waffen gegen Ende des Zweiten
Weltkrieges. Verein für Nassauische Altertumskunde und
Geschichtsforschung, 7. Zweigverein, Geschichts- und Kulturwerkstatt
Westerwald, Montabaur, 1996
>
> > Liar!
>
> > The V2 was never designed as anything other than a weapon of terror.
>
> I'm afraid you are wrong here because it's the first
> rocket to ever go into outer space. It would not
> need to be tested in outer space if is was meant to
> be a weapon.
>
See above. Carriage of explosives was part of the design
specifications right form the beginning, and before the outbreak of
war. This in turn hampered the development of the rocket, since
solutions ot the heat problem interfered with the aerodynamics. A
purely civilian application would not have had this issue.
(Roger Ford; Die deutschen Geheimwaffen des Zweiten Weltkriegs
Doerfler 2003 chap 1)
>
> I'm sorry but it's been addressed. The rocket's purpose
> was for space travel.
> Hitler weaponized it.
Developed since 1936 under army auspices to military specification.
Prior work by Braun's PhD supervisor even before the end of WW1, when
Germany was still a Monarchy, funded by the army.
Hitler only got interested in it at a very late stage, and somewhat
reluctantly, due to the costs.
It's the first
> rocke to go into outer space. Your claim is that even
> that was for weapons. If Hitler had not been there, the
> German technology would have been ahead in the
> space race.
>
> > >He was doing what he was ordered to do,
>
> > And as a good Nazi he carried out his orders with gusto.
>
> That's not what he says and not what people have
> said that were there then, like the one that said
> that if he protested the forced labor he believed that
> V.B. would have been shot.
That was his colleague, Konrad Dannenberg, who faced the same
accusations (so yes, he would say that)
Danneberger had joined the NSDAP in 32, even earlier than von Braun
and long ebfore it became fashionable.
>
> > >and death was what would have happened to him if he didn't. It's well-
> > >known that he
> > >was against what Hitler was doing
>
> > No it is not. He became a Nazi of his own free will and he
> > joined the
> > SS freely.
>
> That was not something he wanted to do, according
> to several witnesses.
> You, on the other hand, have
> no proof stating why he was labeled as one, only
> that he was.
>
> > > and that he said
> > >he was surprised the rocket worked perfectly but that
> > >it hit the wrong planet.
>
> > There is no real evidence he said that.
>
> Yes there is. He said it himself after he was at
> NASA:
> "The Like Television History channel proudly presents,
> This Day In History - October 21! On October 21, 1959,
> Dr. Wernher Von Braun arrives at NASA. Von Braun was
> only 25 when he masterminded the V-2 rocket for Nazi
> Germany. When the first V-2's struc London in 1944,
> Von Braun said it worked perfectly but hit the wrong
> planet."
>
And you think making a tasteless quip like this when your weapon has
just killed lots of civilians is a proof of what exactly?
> The LikeTelevision™ History channel proudly presents, This Day In
> History - October 21! On October 21, 1959, Dr. Werner Von Braun
> arrives at NASA. Von Braun was only 25 when he masterminded the V-2
> rocket for Nazi Germany. When the first V-2's struck London in 1944,
> Von Braun said it worked perfectly but hit the wrong planet."
> tesla.liketelevision.com/liketelevision/tuner.php?...&theme=history
>
> > >It is well-known that he was thrown into jail
> > >for not wanting to comply with Hitler,
>
Which contradicts all the sources and historical documents that I
have quoted, again and again, so no, by simply repeating it it does
not become true.
He just resented Himmler's interference with his work and though
(correctly, probably) that he was more efficient developing the V2
without getting an SS officer promoted over his head.
see Rainer Eisfeld: Mondsüchtig. Wernher von Braun und die Geburt der
Raumfahrt aus dem Geist der Barbarei Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1996 p. 240ff
- with a wealth of primary sources, including Himmler's letters.
Burkhard
> > > and it is well-known that when Hitler used his rocket
> > >for a weapon that he said that it was
> > >his "darkest hour."
>
> > No, again, there is no real evidence that was ever said.
>
> There is, there is:
> Wernher von Braun Biography (1912-1977)
> "The rocket was later renamed the V-2 (Vengeance Weapon 2)and used
> against Great Britain, beginning on September 7, 1944.
> 'When I heard about this,' von Braun later recounted, 'it was the
> darkest hour of my life.'www.madehow.com/inventorbios/56/Wernher-von-Braun.html- 7k
>
So with other words, he died _not_ say it when the designation of the
weapon was announced, as you claimed, but much later, "recounting"
what he felt (but kept for himself) at the time.
"Hitler" or "The Nazis" made me do it became a common theme of the war
generation after the war, including a lot of "backwards projected
resistance". Apparently, almost everybody only ever "mouthed the
words" during marching, but did not really sign along - the Nuremburg
marches must have been a really quiet affair. "Putting out rubbish 10
min late" becomes in retrospect an act of resistance. The same
happened of course in Austria (remodelled itself as "Hitler's first
victim" post war) and Italy - when I lived in Italy, it occurred to
me in conversations that apparently 95% of the population had been
"in the mountains with the resistance", leaving Mussolini and a
handful of brownshirts run the entire country.
In that respect, the defence mechanism is not different from that used
by ordinary criminals trying retrospectively to explain their actions
- I, as I am now, can't understand how I could have done these things
then, so it must have been not me, but "the system".
Klaus Gunther, professor for criminal law, did some very interesting
research into the psychology of these explanations, comparing both
"ordinary" criminals and ordinary Germans trying to explain what they
did under Nazism.
See in particular his "The Criminal Law of `Guilt´ as Subject of a
Politics of Remembrance in Democracies" in: E. Christodulidis u.
Scott Veitch (Hrsg.), Lethe`s Law - Justice, Law and Ethics in
Reconciliation, Oxford (Hart Publ.) 2001, S. 3-16
Braun is just par for the course.
> > >But to you that is all a deep plot.
> > >He obviously did not like what Hitler was doing.
>
> > We have an expression where I come from "Tell that to a dead > donkey
> > and he'll kick your brains out" which I think fits very well in your
> > case.
>
> It doesn't matter. You keep trying to say that
> something is not true and you get shown
> website after website.
>
> > >> >> > It's also a fact
> > >> >> >that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
> > >> >> >rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
> > >> >> >forcing them to do.
>
I'm on record as saying over a beer in the evening to my friends that
I woudl rather not work any longer, and live life on a beautiful
pacific Island with lots of Pina Coladas. Does this make me a
resistance fighter against capitalism?
>
> > > You make the claim that it was a
> > >plot that fed the public lies about WVB in order
> > >that they would be more receptive to him after
> > >the war when he came to America.
>
> > That is known to be 100% true.
>
> Baloney. You go around in circles, Bob. You
> are shown things and you go right back to them,
> and make the same claims again.
The official documents showing Bob to be true have been declassified
in 2006. I've quoted already one of them to you.
" Employment of German scientists and technicians: denial policy." The
reference number from the national
archives in Kew is AVIA 54/1403
Other documents of operation paperclip have been released since
the1980s, resulting in a well researched and well documented,
including the reasons why it was done, and the amount of information
available a the time to the decision makers. Only personally sensitive
documents on individual beneficiaries of paperclip remain sealed for
the time being.
A large museum exhibition showing many of the documents then released
toured European Museums inthe 1990s - the catalogue was published
here;
Uwe Obier: Operation Paperclip. Der Katalog anlässlich der Ausstellung
„Operation Paperclip“ in den Museen der Stadt Lüdenscheid vom 6.
Januar - 22. Januar 1995, Stadt Lüdenscheid, 1994
Other academic works that comprehensively document the operation
include
Linda Hunt, U.S. Coverup of Nazi Scientists The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists. April, 1985.
ibid: Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists,
and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990 St Martin's Press - Thomas Dunne
Books; 1991
Wolfgang W. E. Samuel American Raiders: The Race to Capture the
Luftwaffe’s Secrets (University Press
of Mississippi, 2004)
You also might want to have a look at the more pop. science book by
John Cornwell, Hitler's Scientists: Science, War, and the Devil's Pact
(2004) - the "devil's pact" being both the sell out of German
scientists to Hitler after their Jewish colleagues like Einstein had
to flee, and the use of them by the US and UK after the war. Cornwell
is of course Director of the Science and Human Dimension Project at
Jesus College, Cambridge, and a Christian author who clashed with
Dawkins on several occasions.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<9a03bf46-1a8d-4e1d...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
> You also might want to have a look at the more pop. science book by
> John Cornwell, Hitler's Scientists: Science, War, and the Devil's Pact
> (2004) - the "devil's pact" being both the sell out of German
> scientists to Hitler after their Jewish colleagues like Einstein had
> to flee, and the use of them by the US and UK after the war. Cornwell
> is of course Director of the Science and Human Dimension Project at
> Jesus College, Cambridge, and a Christian author who clashed with
> Dawkins on several occasions.
That's the problem: she _doesn't_ want to have a look at anything which might
show that she's wrong about her Nazi hero, any more than she wants to have a
look at anything that might show that she's wrong about creationism. It's
exactly the same mechanism at work.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Louann Miller
news:1j47dbx.183...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
> It will be a long time still
> before an American president can go to Hiroshima.
> (but I think it is inevitable that it will happen,
> sometime in the future)
>
> Jan
Considering the number of state visits that go on, are you sure it hasn't
happened already? (Glances at Wiki, finds much information about monuments
at the site but no details of who attended any specific memorial ceremony.)
Burkhard
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote innews:1j47dbx.183...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
I think Nancy Pelosi was the highest ranking US official ever to have
an official visit - caused a bit of a stir last year.
Carter visited the memorial in 1984, but that was after his presidency
and not in an official capacity.
Mike L
A propos, though OT, for this week. AlJazeera's English service,
always worth keeping an eye on, is showing a touching programme
called /The Emperor's Tram Girls/ in their /Witness/ series. These
girls, as young as sixteen, were running the Hiroshima tramways at the
time of the attack, and the prog is built round their memories. Some
surprises, too: they had the trams running again in three days, and
one of the women said of an incident related to the bombing "We can
laugh about it now" --I was gobsmacked by that association. Strongly
recommended, though I haven't got to grips with the pattern of their
repeat cycle yet.
--
Mike.
Ye Old One
Very true. But in what way does that justify is actions?
>>
>> >and the Gestapo always ready to
>> >do Hitler's instructions. Read this:
>> >"When asked if von Braun could have protested against the brutal
>> >treatment of the slave laborers, von Braun team member Konrad
>> >Dannenberg told The Huntsville Times, 'If he had done it, in my
>> >opinion, he would have been shot on the spot.' "
>> >http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Wernher_von_Braun
>>
>> Bloody rubbish, he was considered highly important to the war effort -
>> he could have got away with a lot.
>>
>No, Bob, not against Hitler. He would have hunted
>him down.
And I'm telling you that is bloody rubbish. Hitler was well aware of
the A4 project and ordered maximum effort to bring it to completion.
He know, as did most of the high ranking Nazis, the WvB was the A4/V2.
If WvB has said he wanted his workers fed on the best rations
available then that is what they would have been fed, and it would
have been very easy to justify it.
>>
>>
>> >> >And what makes you think that you
>> >> >know what he did, or didn't do, during his time
>> >> >there?
>>
>> >> It is called history. You should study it some time.
>>
>> >I read history, and the history says the above.
>>
>> The history convicts WvB on the evidence.
>>
>It doesn't, Bob.
Yes it does. Live with that, it is not within your power to change it.
>>
>> > But
>> >you consider things that don't fit what you want them to say as being
>> >some kind of plot.
>>
>> I consider you to be a liar based on the evidence from so many > of your
>> posts.
>>
>I consider you to be a troll based on your many posts
Clearly you do not know what a troll is.
>saying such things as that. So what else is new?
Nothing, you just carry on lying.
>>
>> >> >> > Hitler did those things. He
>> >> >> >did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
>> >> >> >Hitler did that..
>>
>> >> >> The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
>> >> >> deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
>>
>> >> >No. Hiler signed an order that the V-2 would be used as
>> >> >a weapon and that was Hitler's idea.
>>
>> >> The V2 was authorized for use by Hitler, of course. But it was
>> >> designed as a weapon from day one - otherwise why would the military
>> >> have paid for the years of development?
>>
>> >You've made this claim and have been corrected about
>> >it and people also other than myself have told you
>> >this is not correct.
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>Uh-huh.
Why lie all the time? You know what a fool it make you look.
>>
>> > I can tell you that at Peenemunde, although the
>> >army insisted on some occasions of packing the V-2 with explosives to
>> >test it, usually they
>> >were more interested in how it would launch into outer
>> >space,
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>> The V2 was never designed as anything other than a weapon of terror.
>>
>I'm afraid you are wrong here because it's the first
>rocket to ever go into outer space.
So what? Any mid to long range ballistic missile would have to.
> It would not
>need to be tested in outer space if is was meant to
>be a weapon.
You show your ignorance again.
Unlike the V1 the V2 was a ballistic missile. A ballistic missile
follows a sub-orbital ballistic flight path with the objective of
delivering a warhead to a target. After the relatively short initial
powered phase of flight, during which time the V2 could be steered,
its course is governed by the laws of orbital mechanics and
ballistics.
In the early stages of testing the Germans did not want the missile
going too far as they wanted to retrieve parts for examination. This
shortening of range was done both by limiting fuel and by not starting
the role programme to early. A fully fueled V2, would therefore stand
a chance to reach a height (100km+) that qualified as space (not outer
space).
>>
>> >and that is proved by the fact that started
>> >launching baloons and rockets with scientific instruments instead of
>> >explosives in them.
>>
>> Wrong, as usual. All the instruments launched were designed to tell
>> them more about the effects of the atmosphere on flight dynamics.
>> There were not, at least from 1940 on, doing any form of research into
>> space travel - they were designing a missile with the sole aim of
>> hitting civilians.
>>
>No, Hitler ordered that. Not Von Braun.
>Von Braun had designs on going to the Moon,
He may have had such dreams. But the A4/V2 was designed, from day one,
as a ballistic missile.
>of man going to Mars, especially, and on the
>construction and launch of a space station.
>>
>> >They seemed more interested in what happened to a
>> >rocket when it went way far up through the atmosphere,
>>
>> Well of course they were you dumbo - it had to do that in order to
>> reach its target.
>>
>I like Dumbo. He had faith that he didn't know
>that he had, when he dropped the feather.
Dumbo was stupid.
>>
>You have a little bit of a problem. A while back
>you didn't seem to allow that the V-2 would be
>used for space, and now you embrace it.
A ballistic missile targeted at more that about 50 miles has to reach
such a height. That is why the V2 was a ballistic missile while the V1
was not.
>But, of course, you supply that it only had to
>have been for evil and for learning about the
>atmosphere for targeting ideas.
>>
>Your problem is that if they were trying to figure
>out the upper atmosphere, they did not have
>to go into outer space, beyond the atmosphere,
They did not go into outer space. That is generally accepted as beyond
10,000km.
>in order to test the rockets for attacking a place
>on the earth. Furthermore, when a rocket goes
>up, it is traveling vertically, but from earth it
>appears to arc and go east. That's because of
>the turning of the earth after the rocket is
>launched.
Rubbish.
> When the V-2 was weaponized, the
>target was England, which was to the west of
>them, not the east of them. In order for it to
>reach Hitler's goal, it would have to be tested
>in a an attitude closer to horizontal but with
>room allowance in the angle for the proper
>arched trajectory. That testing on a more
>horizontal launch was done later.
You clearly do not understand ballistics.
>It was done
>when Hitler decided to weaponize the V-2.
The V2 was always designed as a weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-2_rocket#Developmental_history
>>
>> > than
>> >in seeing how it would explode, or hit a ground target.
>>
>> Just how wrong can you get. Most firings carried dummy war heads -
>> essential to the balance of the rocket.
>>
>I did not say most. I said some were tested with
>explosives packed in. Usually they were not
>tested that way because of the cost.
>>
>> >In fact, it's known that many of the V-2's did not hit
>> >their targets and some didn't even explode.
>>
>> True. Poor design in part, plus a lot of sabotage.
>>
>Yes.
>>
>> > Some were filled with
>> >paper propaganda trying to intimidate the
>> >civilians.
>>
>> True, but so what - that is not what they were designed for. The V2
>> was designed to deliver high explosives to a city.
>>
>Yeah! Some say 30 tons of explosives!!
Hohohohoho! The A4 was designed to carry only one ton of explosives. A
shorter range version with a two-three ton limit was considered but
not tested.
>>
>> >> >> > It wasn't even until near the end of the war
>> >> >> >that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
>> >> >> >rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.
>>
>> >> >> WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
>> >> >> no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
>> >> >> civilians.
>>
>> >> >It is well known that Wernher Von Braun had his head
>> >> >in the clouds, looking up at the heavens, beholding the
>> >> >glory of the moon and stars and that he wanted to give
>> >> >them to the world. All that he accomplished shows that.
>>
>> >> That does not change the well known fact that WvB designed, built,
>> >> tested and then mass produced a weapon that had no battlefield use,
>> >> designed from the outset to kill civilians. Please address that issue.
>>
>> >I have addressed this issue.
>>
>> You have attempted to - but failed.
>>
>I'm sorry but it's been addressed. The rocket's purpose
>was for space travel.
Liar!
> Hitler weaponized it. It's the first
>rocke to go into outer space. Your claim is that even
>that was for weapons. If Hitler had not been there, the
>German technology would have been ahead in the
>space race.
>>
>> >He was doing what he was ordered to do,
>>
>> And as a good Nazi he carried out his orders with gusto.
>>
>That's not what he says
Well he wouldn't, would he?
>and not what people have
>said that were there then, like the one that said
>that if he protested the forced labor he believed that
>V.B. would have been shot.
>>
>> >and death was what would have happened to him if he didn't. It's well-
>> >known that he
>> >was against what Hitler was doing
>>
>> No it is not. He became a Nazi of his own free will and he
>> joined the
>> SS freely.
>>
>That was not something he wanted to do, according
>to several witnesses. You, on the other hand, have
>no proof stating why he was labeled as one, only
>that he was.
We know from official sources that he had joined the NSDAP as early as
1932. He joined the Waffen-SS in 1933 and became an officer from May
1940.
>>
>> > and that he said
>> >he was surprised the rocket worked perfectly but that
>> >it hit the wrong planet.
>>
>> There is no real evidence he said that.
>>
>Yes there is. He said it himself after he was at
>NASA:
>"The Like Television History channel proudly presents,
>This Day In History - October 21! On October 21, 1959,
>Dr. Wernher Von Braun arrives at NASA. Von Braun was
>only 25 when he masterminded the V-2 rocket for Nazi
>Germany. When the first V-2's struc London in 1944,
>Von Braun said it worked perfectly but hit the wrong
>planet."
So you are still taking his word for it?
>>
[snip repeated text.]
>>
>> >It is well-known that he was thrown into jail
>> >for not wanting to comply with Hitler,
>>
>> That is a lie you have been corrected on many times. Why do you keep
>> repeating it?
>>
>Because it happened, Bob.
It did not. He was detained by the Gestapo, that part is true. He was
not thrown into jail and he was certainly not arrested for "not
wanting to comply with Hitler". He was arrested on false allegations
that he was a communist sympathizer. This was, in early 1944, a
deliberate attempt by Himmler to gain full control of the V2 project.
Oh, and by the way, this female dentist you keep on about. I can find
no record that she accused WvB of anything. Care to comment?
>>
>> > and that he would rather be
>> >building space vehicles.
>> >It's well-known that he had to pick forced labor workers
>>
>> No, he did not "have" to do it, he was a designer, and engineer.
>>
>He was asked about this, Bob, and he told
>our governent what they asked about this.
>He did not hold it back that he had to pick
>forced labor workers on several occasions.
The point is that his claims do not have the ring of truth. They
simply do not fit with what we know about his work.
>>
>> > and that he
>> >did not hold back telling the USA this when
>> >he was asked,
>>
>> Because they already knew. He didn't have to tell them anything.
>>
>First you say it's not true, and then you say
>that he didn't have to tell because the government
>already knew. You are contradicting yourself.
Lying moron. We know that WvB went to the camps to select slave labour
for the factory. You claim he was forced to do so, but as a very high
level designer in the project it is strange that he should go at all.
>>
>> > and it is well-known that when Hitler used his rocket
>> >for a weapon that he said that it was
>> >his "darkest hour."
>>
>> No, again, there is no real evidence that was ever said.
>>
>There is, there is:
>Wernher von Braun Biography (1912-1977)
>"The rocket was later renamed the V-2 (Vengeance Weapon 2)and used
>against Great Britain, beginning on September 7, 1944.
>'When I heard about this,' von Braun later recounted, 'it was the
>darkest hour of my life.'
>www.madehow.com/inventorbios/56/Wernher-von-Braun.html - 7k
But there is no evidence that was ever said. It is an uncorroborated
claim. He had a vested interest in making himself look good.
>>
>> >But to you that is all a deep plot.
>> >He obviously did not like what Hitler was doing.
>>
>> We have an expression where I come from "Tell that to a dead > donkey
>> and he'll kick your brains out" which I think fits very well in your
>> case.
>>
>It doesn't matter. You keep trying to say that
>something is not true and you get shown
>website after website.
But you don't come up with any evidence. A website is not evidence
unless it cites its sources.
>>
>> >> >> > It's also a fact
>> >> >> >that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
>> >> >> >rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
>> >> >> >forcing them to do.
>>
>> >> >> No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
>> >> >> most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
>> >> >> believe that one snippet.
>>
>> >> >Also, America is formed from immigrants who came to this
>> >> >country for various reasons, one of which is political assylum.
>>
>> >> Why change the subject?
>>
>> >I didn't change the subject.
>>
>> Yes you did.
>>
>You saying "yes you did" does not change
>the fact that I didn't.
Claiming you didn't just makes you a liar - again. American
immigration has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand so
stop trying to change the subject.
>>
>> >I was answering what
>> >you had said.
>>
>> No you were not.
>>
>> > You make the claim that it was a
>> >plot that fed the public lies about WVB in order
>> >that they would be more receptive to him after
>> >the war when he came to America.
>>
>> That is known to be 100% true.
>>
>Baloney. You go around in circles, Bob. You
>are shown things and you go right back to them,
>and make the same claims again.
I attempt, vainly by the looks of it, to get facts into that
incredibly thick skull of yours.
Ok, one more, so you cannot lie about it again. "Operation Paperclip"
was the code name given to Office of Strategic Services, Joint
Intelligence Objectives Agency's recruitment of German scientists from
Nazi Germany to the USA after the fall of Germany in 1945. President
Truman authorized the operation. However, he expressly ordered that
anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a
nominal participant in its activities, or to be an active supporter of
Nazi militarism" would be specifically excluded.
Under this criterion many of the scientists recruited, such as Wernher
von Braun, Arthur Rudolph and Hubertus Strughold, who were all
officially on record as Nazis and listed by the Allies as a "menace to
the security of the Allied Forces," were ineligible.
However, many, including those above, were cleared to work in the U.S.
after having their backgrounds "bleached" by the military. The
paperclips that secured newly-minted background details to their
personnel files gave the operation its name.
In other words there was a whitewash, a government coverup.
>>
>> >> >People do not have to lie in order to receive such as that.
>> >> >We have your country's beautiful red-headed duchess
>> >> >living here that your country's media trashed.
>>
>> >> Hohohoho!
>>
>> >Yeah, well, that's something to think about. We
>> >love her and think that your country was really,
>> >really harsh on her.
>>
>> You really are very stupid. She is much liked in the UK, though in
>> recent years she does spend too much time in the USA. I've met her
>> twice, one at a press launch for one of her books and another time
>> when she was visiting the city.
>>
>Sorry to differ with you but I read the royalty
>magazines and read what your press said.
You should try living in this country.
>It was in our papers.
Oh dear. That tells me the sort of papers you read. Gullible must be
one of your middle names.
> Most of us could not
>get over how unkind they were to both of
>those girls.
Oh, "most of you". Totally harpic.
> If you say they are kindly to her
>now, I'm glad to hear that. It's nice that you
>could meet her. I like her, personally.
She would not like a liar like you, of that I'm certain.
>>
>> >They were so harsh also on
>> >Diana.
>>
>> You do talk some bloody rubbish!
>>
>> >I remember she cut her hair one time and
>> >your newspapers referred to it as her "latest
>> >short sharp shock."
>>
>> So? She was a very public figure, she revelled in attention as it
>> allowed her to do her charity work much better. Sadly I never
>> met her.
>>
>I think that she liked the positive attention, of course.
>But certainly not the negative attention.
If you are in the public eye then you have to accept both.
> I am sad for
>you, too, that you never met her. Since you are from
>there, I am not sure if you know how the rest of the
>world mourned for her, too, when she died. In America
>people broke into tears when we heard about what
>happened at the end.
Do try to get a grip on reality. If you had been at all interested
then you would know how Britain reacted to her death.
>>
>> >And she was absolutely
>> >gorgeous, no matter what she did with her hair.
>>
>> Well, no, she did not always have the sense to know what
>> worked and
>> what didn't - but that is women for you.
>>
>Are you kidding? Diana had people helping her to
>choose great things. She spent part of every
>week planning her wardrobe. Because of her
>England's designers became very famoust in
>the rest of the world.
As I said, she did not always have the sense to know what
worked and what didn't.
>>
>> >> >We know of
>> >> >her misdeeds
>>
>> >> She was never a war criminal.
>>
>> >Sounds to me like the beautiful red headed duchess was more like the
>> >victim of a media war, before she
>> >ever made mistakes.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>>
>It's not.
Yes it is. Total rubbish. But then that is all I expect from you.
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote in
> news:1j47dbx.183...@de-ster.xs4all.nl:
>
> > It will be a long time still
> > before an American president can go to Hiroshima.
> > (but I think it is inevitable that it will happen,
> > sometime in the future)
> >
> > Jan
>
> Considering the number of state visits that go on, are you sure it hasn't
> happened already?
I think I would have knon,
and you would have known,
Jan
Suzanne
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 22:25:20 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 8, 8:55 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:35:01 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> >> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> >On Aug 7, 7:02 pm, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >> "Suzanne" wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Now, about those missing La Brea dinosaurs: what happened to them?
>
> >> >> > Yeah, how about that. When are you going to tell us?
>
> >> >> I've already told you what I and paleontology think, dear: the dinosaurs
> >> >> were millions of years gone before the first creatures began to be trapped
> >> >> in La Brea. That's simple, it accords with the evidence.
>
> >> >And so, why are you bringing it up anyway?
> >> >Your continual question about why dinosaur
> >> >bones are not in the pits sounds like you are
> >> >trying to make out like I made that an issue.
>
> >> He is trying to find out if you have learned the
> >> answer, You have,
> >> after all, been given it enough times.
>
> >He's trying to be obnoxious is what
> >he's trying to be.
>
> I'll repeat, since you seem to have failed to read it. He is trying to
> find out if you have learned the answer to the question. You have,
> after all, been given said answer enough times.
>
answer it the way that he misunderstood it. He's
still being obnoxious about it.
>
>
> >> >That's called propaganda.
>
> >> No it isn't.
>
> >Yes it is.
>
> Liar!
>
that you are insinuating someone did wrong, yet
the person did not do what is claimed, in this case
because he either misunderstood, or tried to make
it seem like I meant something else is the same
thing.
>
> propaganda
> n noun
> 1 information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used
> to promote a political cause or point of view. Øthe dissemination of
> such information.
> 2 (Propaganda) a committee of Roman Catholic cardinals
> responsible for foreign missions.
>
> ORIGIN
> Italian, from modern Latin congregatio de propaganda fide
> 'congregation for propagation of the faith'.
>
capitalized, more or less. Here is Webster's:
>
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction
over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of
helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's
cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having
such an effect
>
The post that I had written obviously was about the
flood of Noah and the animals in his day, and
obviously not about all the animals that have lived
since the beginning of the earth.
>
He can answer if he likes and explain that he did
not understand that the flood layer or area where
the residue is, would be likely to contain animals
that were in Noah's day. Unless I'm mistaken, it
seems that dinosaur bones would be deeper
buried in the earth or in rock that was already
formed.
>
> >> >> Your problem is far more complex. You have to explain why your belief in
> >> >> the coexistance of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna did not produce
> >> >> dinosaurs in the tar pits.
>
> >> >Apparently my complex problem is you.
>
> >> No it isn't.
>
> >Since you are not me, you cannot speak
> >for me.
>
> Since we no how much you lie I can correct you.
>
now. I'm not intending to hurt your feelings, but
you don't always catch on to things. This is an
example! It's not logical that if dinosaur bones
are not found in the La Brea Tar Pits that man
and dinosaurs did not exist together. It doesn't
matter if they did or didn't exist together
somewhere else, the absence of one in the pits
does not prove that they couldn't co-exist
elsewhere.
>
> >> >It's not logical that if dinosaurs existed in
> >> >Glen Rose, Texas along side of man, if
> >> >they did, that they should also have to be
> >> >in California in the La Brea Tar Pits.
>
> >> Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. They
> never c0-existed with
> >> man or any of the large mammals.
>
> >Maybe you don't understand what he is claiming.
> >It's a form of circular reasoning called a
> >"logical fallacy."
> >http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning
> >It would be like saying
> >If men and women coexisted in the Inca tribe.
> >But only women existed in the Amazon tribe.
> >Therefore men and women never coexisted in the
> >Inca tribe.
>
> You really are VERY stupid. He, and I, are saying
> nothing of the sort.
>
neither of you is saying it correctly if you are
depending upon the absence of dinosaur bones
in the Tar Pits to verify that dinosaurs and man
did not exist simultaneously.
>
> Now answer the question. Why are there no dinosaur fossils in the La
> Brea Tar Pits?
>
I don't also know why sabre-toothed tiger evidence
and mastadon evidence washed out of the ground
and got deposited with the man bones and the 60
some odd other species found there, and dino
bones did not wash out of the ground and go with
the debris, but the fact remains that dino. bones
are not there. Sabre-toothed tigers were extinct
from 9,000 to 10,000 years ago, and mastadons
were extinct some 13,000 years ago. But, trying
to say that the lack of dino. bones in the tar pits,
is not proof that dinos and man didn't cohabit
the planet, is not a logical argument.
>
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
extinct or nearly extinct in your lifetime alone.
It doesn't take long. If counting from the biblical
age of Adam, if you dismiss the length of time
the days of creation were, Noah's flood would
be around 2,500 B.C.- 2,300 B.C.
>
> >> Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
>
> >There simply was no discrepancy. You didn't
> >understand I suppose, that the animals being
> >spoken of lived in Noah's time, since we were
> >talking about Noah's flood. Is there any reason
> >that someone would think that all animals that
> >existed in Adam's time had to still exist in
> >Noah's time?
>
> Why not? According to your favourite fairy tales it was only a few
> generations between the two.
>
to what I said. He did not know what I meant and he
assumed that I meant something else by "every animal."
I was referring to the animals that were alive when the
flood would have happened.
>
> >But this was not the point that had been made by
> >me. What he had been talking about is the claim
> >by many that if Noah's flood existed, there should
> >have to be a flood layer all over the earth. But
> >I was saying that a global flood would not drain
> >off evenly all over the earth, because there would
> >be places where the water would seep into the
> >ground as in the permian basins, and there would
> >be other places rather barren since some of the
> >water that had been on them would be swept away,
> >like the water in a bathtub, as it follows a central
> >path, leaving much debris along the path, but not
> >so much on the periphery.
>
> But we don't find those deposits.
>
making. A flood layer all over the world is not
what likely would have happened. Some of
the water would be deposited in permean
basins where it seeped off. Some would be
fast moving water, depending upon the shape
of the land, which would sweep some places
clean.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
This is a simple enough answer.
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
> In the "Off at a tangent" category
>
>
>
> > >I'm not sure what you are asking.
>
>
You must think with your slide rule.
>
Suzanne
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> 5) Parson Weems made up the story about George Washington and the cherry
> tree. The story is repeated without the sources being checked.
Don't chop down the cherry tree. There is no cherry tree.
Suzanne
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 21:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 8, 4:37 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >I was referring to your statement that I had ignored
> >something that you said. You did not call it to my
> >attention in the last 25 posts if you were wanting me
> >to comment on something.
>
> There are a lot of posts in this thread. Why this "25 post" limit?
> Where do you get that from?
>
which I may have missed. But in looking back,
I see 25 posts from when he last spoke in
here (that I can see in google). He seems to
have taken a lot of time to copy some kind
of information, and apparently asked for a
comment. Google posts come partially closed
up. It may be that I did not open the closed
portion or that I missed it.
>
> > Many of us now have to
> >use google to read the newsgroups since they have
> >been closed off from us through our servers.
>
> Nope. There is no one single person on the net that is forced to use
> google. There are many news servers out there, most very cheap and
> some even free.
>
that it is here. But we have a problem going on.
Over here, most major internet providers have
taken away our free access to the ngs. because
of some exploitation of very young persons.
About the only free one is google, and I think
it is carefully filtered so that those objectionable
things can't get through. However, if we use a
paid ng.service, the i.p.'s will allow that to come
through. I thought I would just try google to see
if I like it.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 10, 12:26 am, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>> On 9 Aug, 09:36, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 8, 2:09 am, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 8 Aug, 01:47, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Aug 6, 4:40 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>
>> > > > I have read that they even called the A-4 the
>> > > > V-2 because it means "vengeance."
>>
>> > > > Suzanne
>>
>> > > The Fieseler Fi 103 was renamed the V-1. Was the Fi 103 a dedicated
>> > > platform for scientific research as well?
>>
>> > I'm not sure what you are asking.
>>
>> > Suzanne
>>
>> It's a simple enough question.
>>
>> Wombat- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>I was talking about the V-2, not the V-1.
>This is a simple enough answer.
No, it is an evasive answer from a very dishonest person.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Yes he is. Now answer the question.
> What he's trying to do is get me to
>answer it the way that he misunderstood it. He's
>still being obnoxious about it.
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
It is a very simple question and one that I've given you the answer to
many times. This is a test of your reading ability, your ability to
learn and - to a very large extent - your honesty.
All three currently register zero.
>>
>>
>> >> >That's called propaganda.
>>
>> >> No it isn't.
>>
>> >Yes it is.
>>
>> Liar!
>>
>It is.
Liar!
>Taking a bit of truth and adding to it something
>that you are insinuating someone did wrong, yet
>the person did not do what is claimed, in this case
>because he either misunderstood, or tried to make
>it seem like I meant something else is the same
>thing.
Liar!
>>
>> propaganda
>> n noun
>> 1 information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used
>> to promote a political cause or point of view. Øthe dissemination of
>> such information.
>> 2 (Propaganda) a committee of Roman Catholic cardinals
>> responsible for foreign missions.
>>
>> ORIGIN
>> Italian, from modern Latin congregatio de propaganda fide
>> 'congregation for propagation of the faith'.
>>
>It means three things. The above is when it is
>capitalized, more or less. Here is Webster's:
>>
[snip an unnecessary repeat.]
>>
>The post that I had written obviously was about the
>flood of Noah and the animals in his day, and
>obviously not about all the animals that have lived
>since the beginning of the earth.
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
>>
>He can answer if he likes and explain that he did
>not understand that the flood layer or area where
>the residue is, would be likely to contain animals
>that were in Noah's day. Unless I'm mistaken, it
>seems that dinosaur bones would be deeper
>buried in the earth or in rock that was already
>formed.
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
>>
>> >> >> Your problem is far more complex. You have to explain why your belief in
>> >> >> the coexistance of dinosaurs and mammalian megafauna did not produce
>> >> >> dinosaurs in the tar pits.
>>
>> >> >Apparently my complex problem is you.
>>
>> >> No it isn't.
>>
>> >Since you are not me, you cannot speak
>> >for me.
>>
>> Since we no how much you lie I can correct you.
>>
>No, you can't and you are not telling the truth
>now.
Liar!
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
>I'm not intending to hurt your feelings, but
>you don't always catch on to things. This is an
>example!
Liar!
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
> It's not logical that if dinosaur bones
>are not found in the La Brea Tar Pits that man
>and dinosaurs did not exist together.
Liar!
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
> It doesn't
>matter if they did or didn't exist together
>somewhere else, the absence of one in the pits
>does not prove that they couldn't co-exist
>elsewhere.
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
>>
>> >> >It's not logical that if dinosaurs existed in
>> >> >Glen Rose, Texas along side of man, if
>> >> >they did, that they should also have to be
>> >> >in California in the La Brea Tar Pits.
>>
>> >> Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. They
>> never c0-existed with
>> >> man or any of the large mammals.
>>
>> >Maybe you don't understand what he is claiming.
>> >It's a form of circular reasoning called a
>> >"logical fallacy."
>> >http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning
>> >It would be like saying
>> >If men and women coexisted in the Inca tribe.
>> >But only women existed in the Amazon tribe.
>> >Therefore men and women never coexisted in the
>> >Inca tribe.
>>
>> You really are VERY stupid. He, and I, are saying
>> nothing of the sort.
>>
>LOL...no, I see what you and he are saying. But
>neither of you is saying it correctly if you are
>depending upon the absence of dinosaur bones
>in the Tar Pits to verify that dinosaurs and man
>did not exist simultaneously.
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
>>
>> Now answer the question. Why are there no dinosaur fossils in the La
>> Brea Tar Pits?
>>
>My answer is "I don't know why." Same answer.
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
>I don't also know why sabre-toothed tiger evidence
>and mastadon evidence washed out of the ground
>and got deposited with the man bones and the 60
>some odd other species found there, and dino
>bones did not wash out of the ground and go with
>the debris, but the fact remains that dino. bones
>are not there.
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
> Sabre-toothed tigers were extinct
>from 9,000 to 10,000 years ago, and mastadons
>were extinct some 13,000 years ago. But, trying
>to say that the lack of dino. bones in the tar pits,
>is not proof that dinos and man didn't cohabit
>the planet, is not a logical argument.
Liar!
Answer the question. "Why are there no dinosaur bones in the La Brea
Tar Pits?"
>>
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
You raised it. So how long?
>Animals have become
>extinct or nearly extinct in your lifetime alone.
>It doesn't take long. If counting from the biblical
>age of Adam, if you dismiss the length of time
>the days of creation were, Noah's flood would
>be around 2,500 B.C.- 2,300 B.C.
There was no flood, that is a fairy story.
>>
>> >> Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
>>
>> >There simply was no discrepancy. You didn't
>> >understand I suppose, that the animals being
>> >spoken of lived in Noah's time, since we were
>> >talking about Noah's flood. Is there any reason
>> >that someone would think that all animals that
>> >existed in Adam's time had to still exist in
>> >Noah's time?
>>
>> Why not? According to your favourite fairy tales it was only a few
>> generations between the two.
>>
>I've explained this, but you evidently have not listened
>to what I said.
Usually because what you say is either a lie or just stupidity.
> He did not know what I meant and he
>assumed that I meant something else by "every animal."
>I was referring to the animals that were alive when the
>flood would have happened.
How many years before your mythical flood did the last dinosaur die
out?
>>
>> >But this was not the point that had been made by
>> >me. What he had been talking about is the claim
>> >by many that if Noah's flood existed, there should
>> >have to be a flood layer all over the earth. But
>> >I was saying that a global flood would not drain
>> >off evenly all over the earth, because there would
>> >be places where the water would seep into the
>> >ground as in the permian basins, and there would
>> >be other places rather barren since some of the
>> >water that had been on them would be swept away,
>> >like the water in a bathtub, as it follows a central
>> >path, leaving much debris along the path, but not
>> >so much on the periphery.
>>
>> But we don't find those deposits.
>>
>Exactly, Bob, that was the point that I was
>making. A flood layer all over the world is not
>what likely would have happened. Some of
>the water would be deposited in permean
>basins
The Permian is a geologic period and system characterized by
widespread, diverse and maturing lifeforms which comes just after the
Carboniferous and that extends from 299 to 251 million years ago. It
is the last period of the Paleozoic Era
So, the Permian basins were formed at least 251 million years ago.
How many years before your mythical flood did the last dinosaur die
out?
>where it seeped off. Some would be
>fast moving water, depending upon the shape
>of the land, which would sweep some places
>clean.
Where are the world wide deposits from your mythical flood. How many
years before your mythical flood did the last dinosaur die out?
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 10, 2:49 am, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 21:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 8, 4:37 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I was referring to your statement that I had ignored
>> >something that you said. You did not call it to my
>> >attention in the last 25 posts if you were wanting me
>> >to comment on something.
>>
>> There are a lot of posts in this thread. Why this "25 post" limit?
>> Where do you get that from?
>>
>He said that I had not answered something,
>which I may have missed. But in looking back,
>I see 25 posts from when he last spoke in
>here (that I can see in google).
There are hundreds of posts a day to the group.
Some threads can get far more than 25 posts in a single day.
> He seems to
>have taken a lot of time to copy some kind
>of information, and apparently asked for a
>comment. Google posts come partially closed
>up. It may be that I did not open the closed
>portion or that I missed it.
So?
>>
>> > Many of us now have to
>> >use google to read the newsgroups since they have
>> >been closed off from us through our servers.
>>
>> Nope. There is no one single person on the net that is forced to use
>> google. There are many news servers out there, most very cheap and
>> some even free.
>>
>Well, we aren't forced to use it. In fact I am glad
>that it is here. But we have a problem going on.
>Over here, most major internet providers have
>taken away our free access to the ngs.
No they have not. Some have closed their own servers, and that is for
no other reason than cost cutting, but none have removed your ability
to use other news servers.
> because
>of some exploitation of very young persons.
Rubbish.
>About the only free one is google,
Liar! Google is not a newsgroup server.
> and I think
>it is carefully filtered so that those objectionable
>things can't get through.
I sincerely doubt that.
> However, if we use a
>paid ng.service, the i.p.'s will allow that to come
>through. I thought I would just try google to see
>if I like it.
Then blame yourself when it doesn't work.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Suzanne
> On 10 Aug, 05:51, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 4:37 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:> On 8 Aug, 01:10, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 6, 5:10 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ye Old One wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 13:05:25 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
> > > > > >>>>> On Aug 3, 7:06 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
> > > > > >>>>> This particular argument is extraordinarily weak and
> > > > > >>>>> a pet peeve of mine.
> > > > > >>>>> Specific accusations aside, within a formal system of
> > > > > >>>>> governmental justice, there are clear and compelling
> > > > > >>>>> reasons to hold individuals as innocent until proven
> > > > > >>>>> guilty. It is absurd, however, to confuse this with a
> > > > > >>>>> statement of fact.
> > > > > >>>>> I see no reason for individuals to be required to hold
> > > > > >>>>> that people are innocent until proven guilty until they
> > > > > >>>>> are rendered into service in the formal justice system.
> > > > > >>>>> Nor should my opinion be restricted to what a particular
> > > > > >>>>> justice system should decide. Maintaining otherwise
> > > > > >>>>> completely misses the principles on which "innocent
> > > > > >>>>> until proven guilty" has been formulated.
> > > > > >>>>> Wither or no Hitler was ever tried I think he was guilty
> > > > > >>>>> of a fair number of rather obvious crimes. Examples of
> > > > > >>>>> those not found guilty but of whom guilt is rather obvious
> > > > > >>>>> could likewise be offered.
> > > > > >>>> Guilt is not obvious in the case of WVB.
> > > > > >>> When you look at the evidence his guilt is clear.
>
> > > > > >> It is not.
>
> > > > > > You seem to be the only one claiming that.
>
> > > > > >>>> people, and put them in concentration camps. He did not
> > > > > >>>> create the concentration camps. He did not order the lack
> > > > > >>>> of food and ill living conditions,
> > > > > >>> He could have done a lot to better them.
>
> > > > > >> Please explain. What do you think that he could
> > > > > >> have done?
>
> > > > > > Well, he could have insisted on better treatment/food/conditions. The
> > > > > > reason to do so would have been that they would have worked better,
> > > > > > not requiring training of frequent replacements, more able to pay
> > > > > > attention to detail.
>
> > > > > >> know what he did, or didn't do, during his time
> > > > > >> there?
>
> > > > > > It is called history. You should study it some time.
> > > > > >>>> did not demand that the rockets would be used as weapons,
> > > > > >>>> Hitler did that..
> > > > > >>> The V2 was designed, from scratch, as a medium range missile to
> > > > > >>> deliver an explosive warhead to a population centre.
>
> > > > > >> No. Hiler signed an order that the V-2 would be used as
> > > > > >> a weapon and that was Hitler's idea.
>
> > > > > > The V2 was authorized for use by Hitler, of course. But it was
> > > > > > designed as a weapon from day one - otherwise why would the military
> > > > > > have paid for the years of development?
> > > > > >>>> that Hitler stepped up the mad rush to turn out all of those
> > > > > >>>> rockets at break-neck speed. Hitler did that.
> > > > > >>> WvB designed, built, tested and then mass produced a weapon that had
> > > > > >>> no battlefield use - it was designed from the outset to kill
> > > > > >>> civilians.
>
> > > > > >> It is well known that Wernher Von Braun had his head
> > > > > >> in the clouds, looking up at the heavens, beholding the
> > > > > >> glory of the moon and stars and that he wanted to give
> > > > > >> them to the world. All that he accomplished shows that.
>
> > > > > > That does not change the well known fact that WvB designed, built,
> > > > > > tested and then mass produced a weapon that had no battlefield use,
> > > > > > designed from the outset to kill civilians. Please address that issue.
> > > > > >>>> that Von Braun said at a party at a house that he would
> > > > > >>>> rather he was building space rockets than what Hitler was
> > > > > >>>> forcing them to do.
> > > > > >>> No, that is NOT a fact. It was used as evidence against him but as
> > > > > >>> most of the other evidence was clearly invented there is no reason to
> > > > > >>> believe that one snippet.
>
> > > > > >> Also, America is formed from immigrants who came to this
> > > > > >> country for various reasons, one of which is political assylum.
>
> > > > > > Why change the subject?
>
> > > > > >> We have your country's beautiful red-headed duchess
> > > > > >> living here that your country's media trashed.
>
> > > > > > Hohohoho!
>
> > > > > >> her misdeeds
>
> > > > > > She was never a war criminal.
>
> > > > > >> to give her a chance. No one can blame you for your
> > > > > >> suspicioius attitude towards WVB, since you live in the
> > > > > >> place his regime wanted to hurl missiles at, but not everyone
> > > > > >> in your country feels the way that you do.
>
> > > > > > No, that is true, even in the UK there are people as poorly educated
> > > > > > as you - just look at Spincronic as a prime example.
> > > > > >>>> They even know that the woman was
> > > > > >>>> a young woman who was a dental assistant that turned
> > > > > >>>> them in. We know that when WVB and the team surrendered
> > > > > >>>> to the Americans, that one man that was present said that
> > > > > >>>> he seemed to act like WVB fancied himself as being some
> > > > > >>>> kind of hero or statesman, and that he eagerly let himself
> > > > > >>>> be photographed with individual Americans who wanted
> > > > > >>>> his picture made with them. That was told to a writer who
> > > > > >>>> wanted to report the event. But that man was telling what
> > > > > >>>> he thought that someone is thinking, and he did not really
> > > > > >>>> know what he was thinking of course and the man could
> > > > > >>>> have read the moment wrong.
> > > > > >>> Could he? WvB was always a publicity seeker.
>
> > > > > >> No, I think the man's words gave it away that he
> > > > > >> was speculating about what V.B. thought. He did not
> > > > > >> know what someone thinks.
>
> > > > > > His actions showed he was a publicity seeker.
> > > > > >> I said she was a dental assistant, but she was a
> > > > > >> young dentist, not an assistant.
>
> > > > > > So what? It is doubtful the event was true.
> > > > > >>>> But one thing is for sure,
> > > > > >>>> if he had been in chains, the man would have told that
> > > > > >>>> for sure, but he never said such a thing.
> > > > > >>> Abusing English again.
>
> > > > > >> You don't like it because I started a sentence with "But,"
>
> > > > > > Nope - that was the only part that actually made sense?
>
> > > > > >> which reflects spoken English that one might use in an
> > > > > >> oral conversation. It is the way we speak in posts,
> > > > > >> and you know it. You express your displeasure in a
> > > > > >> sentence fragment, though, if you are looking for
> > > > > >> perfection. "Abusing English again," is not a sentence,
>
> > > > > > Yes it is.
>
> > > > > >> it's a fragment of one, and therefore considered to
> > > > > >> be incorrect English,
>
> > > > > > Bloody rubbish.
>
> > > > > >> if it is perfection that you are
> > > > > >> seeking.
>
> > > > > > From you I'm seeking things that actually make sense.
> > > > > >>>> Another thing that is rather obvious to me whether or not
> > > > > >>>> others have noticed it, is that if WVB was approving of
> > > > > >>>> what Hitler was doing, the most obvious thing is what
> > > > > >>>> Hitler did to the Jews. Yet in this country it was WVB that
> > > > > >>>> stood up and was outspoken about how segregation was
> > > > > >>>> wrong and how persecuting someone because of the
> > > > > >>>> color of his skin is wrong.
> > > > > >>> Did he? So what?
> > > > > >> Yes he did,
>
> > > > > > Do you have a cite for that?
>
> > > > > I doubt she has one, I have one though. It is in Neufeld's book, pp. 354
> > > > > ff. This is of course the leading biography that I cited before,and
> > > > > Suzanne ignored. Now an interesting dilemma. Is Neufeld still an
> > > > > attention seeking sensationalist who does not know how to research
> > > > > properly, or are his statements about Braun's stated opposition to
> > > > > segregation (and the disruption it brought) reliable? If so, why not his
> > > > > analysis in Chapters 4-8?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > posts, so why are you waiting so long to say this?
>
> > > I have no idea what you mean with this. I posted my reply to YOO as
> > > soon as I saw it.
>
> > I was referring to your statement that I had ignored
> > something that you said. You did not call it to my
> > attention in the last 25 posts if you were wanting me
> > use google to read the newsgroups since they have
> > not familiar with google enough to know if they print
> > all posts. So if something is terribly important to you,
> > unless you are just heckling me or something, you
> > may certainly ask me to comment on something if
> > I have not. Actually, when someone says something,
> > unless they ask for a comment, many of us probably
> > do read what they have said and don't always comment.
>
> > You also said "she probably doesn't have a reference."
> > But I do and I posted it before I answered this post.
>
> > > > And by the way I did give a reference.
>
> > > Re-read your own posts, and no, you did not.
>
> > You are correct that you wrote YOO right back,
> > because I had not yet had a chance to. So...
> > Yes, I did give a reference when asked for a
> > cite. The question was about Von Braun being
> > opposed to segregation. Here is what I wrote:
> > "Bob Ward also says about him, in the section of
> > Ward's book about the 1960's...
> > 'that the very same man took time from the
> > rocket work that gave his life meaning to push
> > for desegregation in George Wallace's Alabama.' "
>
> > If that does not suffice, here is another one quoting
> > V.B. and Wallace.
> > "A year after NASA was created, in 1958, von Braun was
> > appointed chief of the Marshall Space Flight Center
> > (MSFC) in Huntsville, and was no longer working for the
> > army. Pressure was applied to NASA on von Braun to
> > hire more black engineers and technicians, but many were
> > reluctant to move to Alabama at that time. Von Braun
> > did not appear eager to get involved when Governor
> > George Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door to prevent
> > a black student from registering at the University of
> > Alabama, yet he publicly condemned segregation when a
> > black MSFC employee enrolled without incident at the
> > University of Alabama in Huntsville.
>
> > Not long afterward, Governor Wallace visited MSFC and
> > witnessed a rocket test. Von Braun addressed an
> > audience that included the governor, and stressed that it
> > was imperitive that Alabama move on from its
> > segregationalist past. After the speech, he chatted with
> > Wallace and asked the governor if he wanted to be
> > the first person on the Moon. Wallace replied, "Well,
> > better not. You fellows might not bring me back."
> > bwcitypaper.com/1editorialbody.lasso?...&-token.subpub= - 94k
>
> > > I don't know
>
> > > > what point you are making without a reference to
> > > > the post that you made it in.
>
> > > The fact that i cited in several posts both primary, archival material
> > > from Neufeld(and others) books, and their own analysis of it as well -
> > > but to no avail as you keep repeating your claims which are either
> > > totally unsubstantiated, provably wrong or based on vpn Braun's words
> > > only. The only response you aver gave to these academic studies was to
> > > attack the integrity of the authors - also something I pointed out in
> > > several posts.
>
> > I'm sorry if I've missed something that important to
> > you. It can happen. My intentions usually are not
> > to "attack" authors but if I don't agree with them
> > that isn't exactly what I would call "an attack," as a
> > rule.
>
> > I've been told that sometimes google does not
> > print a post immediately. I don't know if that is
> > true or not. I did have a few that did not appear
> > right away so far, but now most of them do.
>
> > No, my statements are not unsubstantiated, but I don't
> > give references for every single word that I say.
>
> That is what is usually knwon as "unsubstantiated"
>
> Neither> do others. But all of this aside, what is it that you
> > think Neufeld said against Von Braun being against
> > segregation? I have not read his book yet.
>
> Nothing. That was exactly my point, if you read my post. Neufeld
> correctly and in detail describes Braun's oposition against
> segregation, So your claim that he is biased gets into trouble. Why
> believe him on Braun on segregation, but dismiss his extensive
> analysisof involvement with the Nazis? (_without_ substantiating in
> any detail your claims, i'm still waiting e.g for a referenc where I
> can find that investigation that "exonerated him with flying colours")
>
I'm not sure what you are even complaining about.
If Neufeld correctly told about Von Braun's opposition
against segregation, then what is the point that you
were making to begin with? If Neufeld didn't agree that
Von Braun was against segregation, then I would think
that he was biased, but not if he did agree that Von Braun
was against segregation. I also said that I had not read
his book, so I don't know what he said about V.B.'s
involvement with the Nazis.
>
In an interview with a French magazine "Paris Match",
they asked Wernher Von Braun to answer his accusers.
There had been a group claiming to have been from
the Dora-Ellrich Camp, who said that V.B. was "partly
responsible" for their suffering. On April 26, 1966, he
replied...
"As much as I understand their bitterness, I am appalled
by their false accusations aimed at me." He then
explained that the U.S. government had cleared him,
and that a war crimes tribunal had investigated the
atrocities at Dora, and that neither investigation had
turned up anything that was against him. He was also
known to have written "I felt ashamed that things like
this were possible in Germany, even under a war
situation where national survival was at stake."
www.wordiq.com/definition/Wernher_von_Braun - 42k
>
You can also read this website to see how the scientists
from Germany were received, or sent away. Here is an
excerpt that would have affected V.B., too.
"By 1946 the Pentagon's Joint Intelligence Objectives
Agency (JIOA) began pushing for a revised and larger
program of recruiting German and Austrian scientists
and technicians. It wanted 1,000 former enemy
scientists and sought authority to grant them American
citizenship. The JIOA needed presidential authority
because so many of the German scientists and
technicians had been members of Nazi organizations;
at least one, Wernher von Braun, had been an SS
officer. President Truman authorized the JIOA's plan
in September 1946, insisting that only "nominal" Nazis
(and no "active supporters" of Nazism) be permitted to
participate in the program, which took the code name
Paperclip. It was left to a panel consisting of
representatives of the Departments of Justice and
State to rule on each scientist that the JIOA wanted to
bring to the United States. This panel in early 1947
began reviewing dossiers prepared in Germany by the
Office of Military Government United States (OMGUS).
These dossiers were based on earlier CIC
investigations. If the person had been classified as an
actual or potential threat to the security of the
United States, there was little chance of the scientist
being allowed to immigrate to the United States. Some
of the scientists were so identified on the bases of
Nazi pasts and the review panel duly rejected the
Pentagon's request that those individuals be permitted
to immigrate."
archives.gov/iwg/reports/nazi-war-crimes-interim-report-october-1999 -
96k
>
This makes it clear that the scientists were investigated,
and that if they were a threat, they would not be allowed
to come into the USA. You will see Von Braun's name
here also.
>
> > > >You might also look
> > > > at this reply to the book review about this book
> > > > by a person on this webpage.http://www.amazon.com/review/R2NBQ89759RY5G/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2NB...
>
> > > "a person?" On a website? So how do you know that he has the knowledge
> > > to make this assessment? If you want proper reviews you need the
> > > relevant academic journals. As I posted before, this book won two
> > > prestigious prices awarded by the relevant learned societies.
>
> > The person that made this proper review invited
> > or amazon invited people to comment. Did you
> > read what was said?
>
> Yes. And I did not find any objective fact stated there that showed
> neufeld wrong, just that he "did nit like it". As with all amazon
> reviews, it is not possible to assess the qualification of the
> reviewer. with other words, as a source to form an opinion on the
> accuracy of an academic work they are pretty useless.> > There are a lot of leading biographies about his
>
> > > > life.
>
> > > And yet you don't use them as evidence to suport your claims. Now,
> > > having actually read most of them, I'd be quite happy to discuss any
> > > claims they make that prop up your rewritten history - I personally
> > > can't see any.
>
> > Maybe you would like to rewrite something of
> > history concerning whether or not the first
> > president of the USA, George Washington,
> > really chopped down the cherry tree? The
> > modern version is that he didn't do that, and
> > the proof that they think that they have is that
> > they can't find any proof that he did. That's
> > what you are up against with all the material
> > that you have read about WVB, that kind of
> > thinking.
>
> Not really - which you would see if you actually read any of the
> studies I cited. hey are based on extensive research in the German
> archives, interviews with survivors, court documents, the documents
> released by the allies. And again, your post implies an allegation
> against the professional competence and integrity of these historians.
>
George Washington. I was seriously making a point.
The claims against certain people in history by some
historians is to claim that something didn't happen if they
can't find proof of it. The absence of evidence does not
prove incriminating claims.
>
Are you saying that you don't think anyone has a
right to question the things that some people write?
Are you claiming that all professional historians are
accurate? And what about NASA's historian?
>
You say...
"your post implies an allegation against the
professional competence and integrity of these
historians."
that we have talked about. What do you think of
NASA's historian? He's has professional competence.
Do you think he is accurate? I tend to think so.
>
> > > NASA also writes a biography that is available
> > > > online. It seems that they would have the best
> > > > sources.
>
> > Suzanne
Burkhard
Which sort of proves my point? That a) you form your opinion without
looking at the latest,and most authoritative evidence available, that
b), you nonetheless claim that these persons 9who you never read) must
have had an "agenda". (and I quoted Neufeld on a large number of my
posts) posts
My point was simpy to supply the citation yoo asked for - and to point
out thatiit shows how balanced Neufeld's analysis is.
> In an interview with a French magazine "Paris Match",
> they asked Wernher Von Braun to answer his accusers.
> There had been a group claiming to have been from
> the Dora-Ellrich Camp, who said that V.B. was "partly
> responsible" for their suffering. On April 26, 1966, he
> replied...
> "As much as I understand their bitterness, I am appalled
> by their false accusations aimed at me." He then
> explained that the U.S. government had cleared him,
> and that a war crimes tribunal had investigated the
> atrocities at Dora, and that neither investigation had
> turned up anything that was against him. He was also
> known to have written "I felt ashamed that things like
> this were possible in Germany, even under a war
> situation where national survival was at stake."
> www.wordiq.com/definition/Wernher_von_Braun - 42k
> You can also read this website to see how the scientists
> from Germany were received, or sent away.
so we have his own word, and not much else? Thisis hardly very
compelling, don't you think?
Yes indeed, they were a) investigated. but you (or anybody else for the
time being) can't know the outcome as the files are still under wraps.
So how does this support your claim that he was "c;eared with flying
colours?
Second, as your own source correctly says, the criteria was not: did
they commit war crimes but: are they a threat to the US, now that the
Nazis are defeated. Which explains why top Nazis, including members of
their intelligence staff such as Gehlen who had been involved with
torturing and killing prisoners, got the all clear (""abandoning every
shred of mercy and humanity towards prisoners of war"). They were not a
danger any longer, but a useful asset. But this was not, and was never
intended, as an investigation of war crime allegations.
_Despite all this_ we know that Braun and the others did _not_pass with
flying colours even that investigation, not by a long strech. We know
this from the documents that were released since 1980 (and I have given
you copious references to both primary and secondary sources)
We know for instance that the initial applications were _rejected_, a
decision only overturned when an furious Bosquet Wev, director of the
JIOA, wrote a memo (which has been released from the archives in the
80s)saying that "the best interests of the United States have been
subjugated to the efforts expended in 'beating a dead Nazi horse"
So obviously,the conclusion was yes, they were ardent Nazis, but since
Germany and lost the war, no danger in comparison to their usefulness.
We know that this assement was shared by the
we also know, from the released records, that this view was shared by
the political side. Samuel Klaus, (State Departments representative
JIOA board), is on record that all the scientists in this first batch
group tat included WvB were "ardent Nazis."
And we know that both the US and UK government were so embarrassed about
this, that they agreed a joint "deception policy" so to not undermine
public confidence in the war crime tribunals tat were going on at the
same time (I gave you the reference to this document before, is is
declassified since 2006 and in the National Archives)
You find extensive analysis of this in
Christopher Simpson: Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its
Effects on the Cold War (New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988)
Wolfgang W. E. Samuel: American Raiders: The Race to Capture the
Luftwaffe’s Secrets (University Press of Mississippi, 2004)
Linda Hunt, "U.S. Coverup of Nazi Scientists" Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists. April, 1985.
John Farquharson "Governed or Exploited? The British Acquisition of
German Technology, 1945–48" Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 32,
No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 23–42
but here we deal with the opposite, large amounts of evidence
> Are you saying that you don't think anyone has a
> right to question the things that some people write?
Sure, if it is based on arguments supported by objectively testable
evidence, e.g. in the form of documents
> Are you claiming that all professional historians are
> accurate?
No, but if a large number of them (and I cited at least 100 come to the
same result, and there is no evidence presented to call their results
into question then I'd say we have a pretty good reason to go with it.
And what about NASA's historian?
as far as I can see, they don't disagree with what i said, but typically
don't write quite as extensively about the pre-US time as this is not
their field of professional expertise and also not covered by their
archives. if you want to do history about Braun pre-45, you need to be
able to access the German archives, for starters.
> You say...
> "your post implies an allegation against the
> professional competence and integrity of these
> historians."
> I don't think that there have been a lot of historians
> that we have talked about.
well, I remember citing at least 12
alextangent
As an aside, since you thought to insert a comment here, aren't you
ready to throw in the towel on WvB, V2s, and all the rest now that
there's been so much evidence preseneted in favour of the hypothesis
that WvB would have been deemed a war criminal had he stood trial for
it? Or that Operation Paperclip enabled a number of Nazi party members
have the US wash away their crimes against humanity? Or that your
understanding of the V2's purpose; that it wasn't to enter space, but
to create the world's first ICBM?
Your analytical skills seem sorely in short supply. Do you only think
with assistance from your equivalent of a slide rule, the bible? I use
my brain. I own a slide rule, but I haven't used it in over 30 years.
Ditto the not-so-good book.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 10, 3:17 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 10 Aug, 05:51, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 8, 4:37 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:> On 8 Aug, 01:10, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Aug 6, 5:10 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> That is what is usually knwon as "unsubstantiated"
>>
>> Neither> do others. But all of this aside, what is it that you
>> > think Neufeld said against Von Braun being against
>> > segregation? I have not read his book yet.
>>
>> Nothing. That was exactly my point, if you read my post. Neufeld
>> correctly and in detail describes Braun's oposition against
>> segregation, So your claim that he is biased gets into trouble. Why
>> believe him on Braun on segregation, but dismiss his extensive
>> analysisof involvement with the Nazis? (_without_ substantiating in
>> any detail your claims, i'm still waiting e.g for a referenc where I
>> can find that investigation that "exonerated him with flying colours")
>>
>I'm not sure what you are even complaining about.
>If Neufeld correctly told about Von Braun's opposition
>against segregation,
There is no evidence he was.
>then what is the point that you
>were making to begin with? If Neufeld didn't agree that
>Von Braun was against segregation, then I would think
>that he was biased, but not if he did agree that Von Braun
>was against segregation
Then I would think he had bent the truth.
>. I also said that I had not read
>his book, so I don't know what he said about V.B.'s
>involvement with the Nazis.
>>
>In an interview with a French magazine "Paris Match",
>they asked Wernher Von Braun to answer his accusers.
>There had been a group claiming to have been from
>the Dora-Ellrich Camp, who said that V.B. was "partly
>responsible" for their suffering. On April 26, 1966, he
>replied...
>"As much as I understand their bitterness, I am appalled
>by their false accusations aimed at me."
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.
> He then
>explained that the U.S. government had cleared him,
You now know that was not true. He knew it was not true at the time,
that makes him a liar.
>and that a war crimes tribunal had investigated the
>atrocities at Dora, and that neither investigation had
>turned up anything that was against him. He was also
>known to have written "I felt ashamed that things like
>this were possible in Germany, even under a war
>situation where national survival was at stake."
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he.
But you now know that the above is not at true description of what
happened. The files were edited to get WvB and other into the country.
It was a whitewash.
>>
>This makes it clear that the scientists were investigated,
>and that if they were a threat, they would not be allowed
>to come into the USA. You will see Von Braun's name
>here also.
But you now know that it is not true, why keep repeating the lie?
In the case of WvB there is a lot of proof.
>>
>Are you saying that you don't think anyone has a
>right to question the things that some people write?
>Are you claiming that all professional historians are
>accurate? And what about NASA's historian?
>>
>You say...
>"your post implies an allegation against the
>professional competence and integrity of these
>historians."
>I don't think that there have been a lot of historians
>that we have talked about. What do you think of
>NASA's historian? He's has professional competence.
>Do you think he is accurate? I tend to think so.
Given the large number of mistakes on the NASA history site, I
certainly don't put any credence to the authors.
>>
>> > > NASA also writes a biography that is available
>> > > > online. It seems that they would have the best
>> > > > sources.
>>
>> > Suzanne
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by alextangent
<bl...@rivadpm.com>:
>On Aug 11, 3:42 am, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 10, 2:51 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:> In the "Off at a tangent" category
>>
>> > > >I'm not sure what you are asking.
>>
>> > > Another sine of your inability to read.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> You must think with your slide rule.
>>
>> Suzanne
>
>As an aside, since you thought to insert a comment here, aren't you
>ready to throw in the towel on WvB, V2s, and all the rest now that
>there's been so much evidence preseneted in favour of the hypothesis
>that WvB would have been deemed a war criminal had he stood trial for
>it? Or that Operation Paperclip enabled a number of Nazi party members
>have the US wash away their crimes against humanity? Or that your
>understanding of the V2's purpose; that it wasn't to enter space, but
>to create the world's first ICBM?
I'd argue "IRBM", a la the SCUD series; the proposed V9 (the
"New York Rocket") was the ICBM.
>Your analytical skills seem sorely in short supply. Do you only think
>with assistance from your equivalent of a slide rule, the bible? I use
>my brain. I own a slide rule, but I haven't used it in over 30 years.
>Ditto the not-so-good book.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Dan Luke
"Suzanne" wrote:
> Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There simply was no discrepancy. You didn't
understand I suppose, that the animals being
spoken of lived in Noah's time, since we were
talking about Noah's flood. Is there any reason
that someone would think that all animals that
existed in Adam's time had to still exist in
Noah's time?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/what-happened-to-the-dinosaurs
You're not done, yet Suzanne.
--
Dan
"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus
Klaus Hellnick
> On 8 Aug, 01:47, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 4:40 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Lodder) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>>>> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Aug, 17:02, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>>>>>>> Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5 Aug, 12:07, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:44:53 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 4, 6:08 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:50:08 -0700 (PDT), Suzanne
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> V-2 because it means "vengeance."
>>
>> Suzanne
>
> The Fieseler Fi 103 was renamed the V-1. Was the Fi 103 a dedicated
> platform for scientific research as well?
>
>
Sure, it was a drone science platform to gather weather data.
Unfortunately, the automatic return system kept malfunctioning, causing
them to fly towards London, rather than returning the scientific
payload. When the fuel ran out, the drones crashed. The drones had a
small charge to harmlessly self destruct, but the British RADAR
transmitters interfered with the fuse timer, so they often exploded on
the ground. The RADAR beams were probably what scrambled the guidance
systems, as well.
;)
Wombat
Very interesting, but 850 kg of explosive is a small charge?
Wombat
Suzanne
> On 10 Aug, 05:51, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Maybe you would like to rewrite something of
> > history concerning whether or not the first
> > president of the USA, George Washington,
> > really chopped down the cherry tree? The
> > modern version is that he didn't do that, and
> > the proof that they think that they have is that
> > they can't find any proof that he did. That's
> > what you are up against with all the material
> > that you have read about WVB, that kind of
> > thinking.
>
> Not really - which you would see if you actually read any of the
> studies I cited. hey are based on extensive research in the German
> archives, interviews with survivors, court documents, the documents
> released by the allies. And again, your post implies an allegation
> against the professional competence and integrity of these historians.
>
> > > > online. It seems that they would have the best
> > > > sources.
>
wrong for you to say that I am "against the professional
competence and integrity of" (those) "historians." You,
yourself are disbelieving NASA's biography and the
people in the USA who are historians who also have
collected the facts, plus the man himself, and what he
has to say about it, plus the ones that moved over here,
themselves, who went through the events with him. So,
you don't have any right to make such a claim against
me, since you, yourself, are mistrusting any of the
American historians. You are trusting people who might
have spoken to hostile witnesses. The man chose to
come to America, where he could be a scientist/rocket
engineer in a free country and with the aim and purpose
to do something for the benefit of mankind. Not only did
he choose that way, but he proved it by his many great
accomplishments. This is all that he ever wanted to do
in the first place! Because he bolstered up the USA
space race, he probably is one of the greatest of the
contributors to all of the people in the world that are
living in freedom today. You might even have freedom
because of him, either directly or indirectly, and not
even know it.
>
Suzanne
Burkhard
Nope. There is nothing in the NASA biography that contradicts anything I
said or cited.
and the
> people in the USA who are historians who also have
> collected the facts,
which you failed to give, so we only have your words for it
plus the man himself, and what he
> has to say about it, plus the ones that moved over here,
> themselves, who went through the events with him. So,
> you don't have any right to make such a claim against
> me, since you, yourself, are mistrusting any of the
> American historians.
Nope. The majority of historians I cited are Americans. I added a couple
of French and German ones as they have access to different archives.
You are trusting people who might
> have spoken to hostile witnesses.
Commonly called "victims"
The man chose to
> come to America, where he could be a scientist/rocket
> engineer in a free country and with the aim and purpose
> to do something for the benefit of mankind. Not only did
> he choose that way, but he proved it by his many great
> accomplishments.
And what does this have to do with the question?
This is all that he ever wanted to do
> in the first place! Because he bolstered up the USA
> space race, he probably is one of the greatest of the
> contributors to all of the people in the world that are
> living in freedom today.
And what does this have to do with the question?
You might even have freedom
> because of him, either directly or indirectly, and not
> even know it.
> Suzanne
And what does this have to do with the question?
Ye Old One
You really are an ignorant moron.
--
Bob.
Suzanne
>
Please state your question.
>
Suzanne
Burkhard
labour for his project amount to complicity to "crimes against
humanity", and whether or not he was willing to go along with the Nazi
atrocities as long s they allowed him to work on his pet topic?
And whether the frequent claims that you made, from his "active
resistance" to his being "cleared with flying colours" have any
historical basis?
Suzanne
> >Suzanne
>
> Whether or not his actions as SS Sturmbannfuehrer and his use of slave
> labour for his project amount to complicity to "crimes against
> humanity",
>
included at the bottom of this page.
>
>and whether or not he was willing to go along with the Nazi
> atrocities as long s they allowed him to work on his pet topic?
>
provided for you. In it, you will also see the dated
rebuttal by Von Braun against some accusers. His
reply is this:
April 26, l966:
"As much as I understand their bitterness, I am appalled by their
government had cleared him, how a war crimes tribunal had investigated
the atrocities at Dora, that neither investigation had found anything
that adversely reflected on him. About the crimes at Dora, he wrote:
"I felt ashamed that things like this were possible in Germany, even
under a war situation where national survival was at stake".
>
> And whether the frequent claims that you made,
>
biased. Speaking to someone's defense, does not
exactly match the connotation of the words "frequent
claims." My intention was to speak to his defense,
not just "make claims."
>
> from his "active
> resistance" to his being "cleared with flying colours" have any
>
It's a matter of historical fact that the above rebuttal
was made by Von Braun who said that the USA had
cleared him, using a tribunal. It is also a fact that the
FBI has a file on Dr. Von Braun, which is also attested
to by this website. If the FBI has a file on someone
that person has been investigated.
>
I don't blame you at all for wanting to know all of this.
I've heard all these accusations and questions as I've
told you previously, all of my life. There are countless
numbers of people that have spoken in his defense,
and I'm sorry I do not remember who they all were,
since they were on the radio news broadcasts for
all the years since he came to this country.
>
Someone has pointed out that the workers were not
"slaves," because a slave is someone really who is
bought. These were, it has been suggested, "forced
laborers." They were forced into a concentration
camp, and apparently Hitler didn't care if they survived.
He killed people in concentration camps, unless he had
a purpose for them. I see Von Braun as also being a
forced laborer, who was watched and so it is said, also
threatened, but it suited Hitler that he would not reside
in a concentration camp, and he had limited freedom.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wernher_von_Braun
>
Suzanne
Suzanne
>
>
> >> Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
>
> >understand I suppose, that the animals being
> >spoken of lived in Noah's time, since we were
> >talking about Noah's flood. Is there any reason
> >that someone would think that all animals that
> >existed in Adam's time had to still exist in
> >Noah's time?
>
> generations between the two.
>
in Genesis. Each
of those patriarchs lived hundreds of years.
The patriarchs also could be several hundred
years old before their son was born.
>
>
> >But this was not the point that had been made by
> >me. What he had been talking about is the claim
> >by many that if Noah's flood existed, there should
> >have to be a flood layer all over the earth. But
> >I was saying that a global flood would not drain
> >off evenly all over the earth, because there would
> >be places where the water would seep into the
> >ground as in the permian basins, and there would
> >be other places rather barren since some of the
> >water that had been on them would be swept away,
> >like the water in a bathtub, as it follows a central
> >path, leaving much debris along the path, but not
> >so much on the periphery.
>
> But we don't find those deposits.
>
www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
>
Suzanne
J. J. Lodder
That's an easy one, for there is no evidence that Von Braun
ever acted 'in his capacity as an SS Sturmbannfuehrer'.
(except for a one time ceremonial presentation in uniform
on the occasion of Himmler's visit)
You would do better to separate this issue
from the less debatable issue of his complicity
in crimes against humanity.
Jan
Wombat
Anyone who used AIG as a reliable source has lost the plot.
Wombat
J. J. Lodder
> > Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
> >
> There simply was no discrepancy. You didn't
> understand I suppose, that the animals being
> spoken of lived in Noah's time, since we were
> talking about Noah's flood. Is there any reason
> that someone would think that all animals that
> existed in Adam's time had to still exist in
> Noah's time?
God made them, and saw that it was good.
Since it was good, there was no reason
for animals that god made to disappear from the earth.
In fact in the 18th century creationists believed extinction
(except by the flood) to be impossible.
The fate of the dodo, came as quite a shock.
> But this was not the point that had been made by
> me. What he had been talking about is the claim
> by many that if Noah's flood existed, there should
> have to be a flood layer all over the earth. But
> I was saying that a global flood would not drain
> off evenly all over the earth, because there would
> be places where the water would seep into the
> ground as in the permian basins, and there would
> be other places rather barren since some of the
> water that had been on them would be swept away,
> like the water in a bathtub, as it follows a central
> path, leaving much debris along the path, but not
> so much on the periphery.
Not everywhere, but there should have been
in thousands of places.
In fact it is nowhere to be found,
Jan
Ye Old One
Fairy stories again. You really do make yourself look VERY stupid.
>>
>>
>> >> Do you have a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy or not?
>>
>> >There simply was no discrepancy. You didn't
>> >understand I suppose, that the animals being
>> >spoken of lived in Noah's time, since we were
>> >talking about Noah's flood. Is there any reason
>> >that someone would think that all animals that
>> >existed in Adam's time had to still exist in
>> >Noah's time?
>>
>> Why not? According to your favourite fairy tales it was only a few
>> generations between the two.
>>
>From Adam to Noah there were ten patriarchs mentioned in the genealogy
>in Genesis. Each
>of those patriarchs lived hundreds of years.
People do not live hundreds of years.
>The patriarchs also could be several hundred
>years old before their son was born.
Idiot.
>>
>>
>> >But this was not the point that had been made by
>> >me. What he had been talking about is the claim
>> >by many that if Noah's flood existed, there should
>> >have to be a flood layer all over the earth. But
>> >I was saying that a global flood would not drain
>> >off evenly all over the earth, because there would
>> >be places where the water would seep into the
>> >ground as in the permian basins, and there would
>> >be other places rather barren since some of the
>> >water that had been on them would be swept away,
>> >like the water in a bathtub, as it follows a central
>> >path, leaving much debris along the path, but not
>> >so much on the periphery.
>>
>> But we don't find those deposits.
>>
>Scientists say they do see evidence:
>www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i1/flood.asp
You are a very gullible moron.
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<leil...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
We know they are not false.
> He went on to explain that the U.S.
>government had cleared him,
We know that to be a lie.
> how a war crimes tribunal had investigated
>the atrocities at Dora, that neither investigation had found anything
>that adversely reflected on him. About the crimes at Dora, he wrote:
>"I felt ashamed that things like this were possible in Germany, even
>under a war situation where national survival was at stake".
>(from article listed at website at bottom of this post)
That is no more credible than you your postings here.
>>
>> And whether the frequent claims that you made,
>>
>Your usage of the words "frequent claims" sounds
>biased. Speaking to someone's defense, does not
>exactly match the connotation of the words "frequent
>claims." My intention was to speak to his defense,
>not just "make claims."
Problem for you is that there is no defense.
>>
>> from his "active
>> resistance" to his being "cleared with flying colours" have any
>> historical basis?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>It's a matter of historical fact that the above rebuttal
>was made by Von Braun who said that the USA had
>cleared him, using a tribunal.
Which we now know is a lie.
>It is also a fact that the
>FBI has a file on Dr. Von Braun, which is also attested
>to by this website. If the FBI has a file on someone
>that person has been investigated.
>>
>I don't blame you at all for wanting to know all of this.
>I've heard all these accusations and questions as I've
>told you previously, all of my life. There are countless
>numbers of people that have spoken in his defense,
>and I'm sorry I do not remember who they all were,
>since they were on the radio news broadcasts for
>all the years since he came to this country.
You are very gullible.
>>
>Someone has pointed out that the workers were not
>"slaves," because a slave is someone really who is
>bought.
Nope.
>These were, it has been suggested, "forced
>laborers."
Still slave workers.
> They were forced into a concentration
>camp, and apparently Hitler didn't care if they survived.
>He killed people in concentration camps, unless he had
>a purpose for them. I see Von Braun as also being a
>forced laborer,
Hohohohoho!
>who was watched and so it is said, also
>threatened, but it suited Hitler that he would not reside
>in a concentration camp, and he had limited freedom.
>>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wernher_von_Braun
>>
>Suzanne
--
Bob.