More Justice Department Hiding

[slto...@gmail.com]

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records of costs incurred by and logs maintained by the security detail for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. JW President Tom Fitton: “The American people have a right to know how much taxpayer money is being thrown at Mueller’s massive investigation.'

So now we can get to know how much it has cost the American people to put a 30 year Army veteran with 5 years of direct combat into prison.

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 9:43:35 PM UTC, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records of costs incurred by and logs maintained by the security detail for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. JW President Tom Fitton: “The American people have a right to know how much taxpayer money is being thrown at Mueller’s massive investigation.'
>
> So now we can get to know how much it has cost the American people to put a 30 year Army veteran with 5 years of direct combat into prison.

I lurf the Freedom of Information Act.

Andre Jute
The people have a right to know what their "servants" are up to

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 13:43:33 -0800 (PST), slto...@gmail.com wrote:

>Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records of costs incurred by and logs maintained by the security detail for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. JW President Tom Fitton: “The American people have a right to know how much taxpayer money is being thrown at Mueller’s massive investigation.'
>
>So now we can get to know how much it has cost the American people to put a 30 year Army veteran with 5 years of direct combat into prison.

You mean that is one has been in the Military and spent time in a
combat zone one should not be prosecute for evil deeds?

Strange, you know. I personally know a couple of combat veterans who
the military itself put in jail for crimes committed.

I thought it was the other way round in America. I knew guys coming
back from Vietnam that people spit at because they were wearing their
uniform.

cheers,

John B.

[slto...@gmail.com]

John, tell us what "evil deeds" that General Flynn was responsible for. As National Security Advisor he was expected to meet with foreign government officials. When he was called in by the FBI and told that it was just a talk if he decided not to make what was talked about there known that would supposedly be his own judgement. The two agents said that he was honest with them. And this despite the fact that he had been set up for entrapment because they had recorded the entire conversation since the Russian Government official apparently was nothing of the kind but rather an FBI informant that had a wire.

There wasn't anything illicit about their conversation and the only thing that you are calling an "evil deed" is that he didn't tell the FBI 100% of what the conversation was about. And I'll repeat - he was the National Security Advisor and it was his responsibility to keep what he believed to be confidential information confidential.

The stench of what has been done to him should end up before a jury. I want to see Mueller squirming.

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 7:09:42 PM UTC, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> John, tell us what "evil deeds" that General Flynn was responsible for. As National Security Advisor he was expected to meet with foreign government officials. When he was called in by the FBI and told that it was just a talk if he decided not to make what was talked about there known that would supposedly be his own judgement. The two agents said that he was honest with them. And this despite the fact that he had been set up for entrapment because they had recorded the entire conversation since the Russian Government official apparently was nothing of the kind but rather an FBI informant that had a wire.
>
> There wasn't anything illicit about their conversation and the only thing that you are calling an "evil deed" is that he didn't tell the FBI 100% of what the conversation was about. And I'll repeat - he was the National Security Advisor and it was his responsibility to keep what he believed to be confidential information confidential.
>
> The stench of what has been done to him should end up before a jury. I want to see Mueller squirming.

+1

Andre Jute
Hallelujah!

[John B. Slocomb]

I was contesting your very general statement that "to put a 30 year
Army veteran with 5 years of direct combat "...

Had you been a little more specific and mentioned a name then I
probably wouldn't have commented.

But that is your ploy, isn't it. A big loud noise, a very general
statement and then a swift change of subject when someone contradicts
you.

For example, you say "direct combat" but when I had a look at Flinn's
military history I find he was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant in 1981
and participated in the invasion of Grenada in 1983, probably as a 1st
Lt. or maybe a Captain, his next "combat" assignment seems to have
been in 1994, when he would have been at least a major and subsequent
assignments were as chief of staff or other senior positions.

The term "direct combat" would normally indicate direct, on the
ground, shoot 'em up, fighting and I can assure you that army officers
above the rank of Captain are very seldom engaged in "direct combat"
and as a general staff officer, never.

cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

-1 = 0

O.K., from the top. Flynn was not on the NSC or the National Security Adviser when he allegedly spoke with Russian officials. He was on the Trump transition team. He was a civilian, and under the Logan Act, civilians cannot conduct negotiations with foreign powers. That's why we have a Secretary of State and a diplomatic corps. So, the inquiry is whether he violated the Logan Act or some other controlling federal legislation by speaking to the Russians, if he did that. He also failed to register as a foreign agent and admitted to lobbying for Turkey, so there's that. https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/9/14868680/trump-adviser-michael-flynn-foreign-agent-turkey-lobby He also lied to the FBI, so there's that, too.

Not surprisingly, Flynn came up on the radar of the FBI/DOJ because of the FISA surveillance, among other reasons. He lied to the FBI and got busted. Now this is where all the conspiracy theory comes in about the evil cabal of Democrats filleting Flynn for evil sport rather than Mueller casting a wide web and catching a lot of Russian and domestic flies -- including liars, tax cheats and other scofflaws. This happens all the time -- criminal investigations that catch a bunch of collateral dopes. I see nothing unusual about this at all, and with Manafort, my only question is why wasn't he prosecuted every day of the week and twice on Sundays for the last three decades. Same with Roger Stone.

I also don't get the claim that Mueller is part of the deep state and a Clinton co-conspirator, etc., etc. Really? The guy is a life-long Republican with a spotless record of public service. Was he brain-washed in Manchuria? Paid off by Obama? And if he is so evil, why are his lieutenants so loyal? It's the only government operation that doesn't leak like a sieve. Even Trump's former chief of staff is telling embarrassing tales. Nobody on either side of the aisle has anything bad to say about Mueller the man, nor do the people who work with him day in and day out. He strikes me as exactly the public servant we want. But feel free to natter on about conspiracies, because that is the thing to do these days.

-- Jay Beattie.

[slto...@gmail.com]

At what point did he conduct ANY negotiation? I love the way you invent reality as you go along.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Michael_Flynn_Resignation_Letter.pdf

[slto...@gmail.com]

He is a "life-long Republican" and yet he assembled the largest crew of Trump hating Democrats possible in the shortest period of time that demonstrated that he had planned this all from the original time he had spoken to Obama.

You are another of those who stood aside and excused the NAZI's as they hauled off the Jews.

[jbeattie]

I didn't say he did. You need to improve your reading comprehension. This is what I said: "So, the inquiry is whether he violated the Logan Act or some other controlling federal legislation by speaking to the Russians, if he did that." Quit frothing on your key board and read what I wrote.

I don't know what he did, and I leave that to the FBI/DOJ to sort out along with what communications with foreign dignitaries do or do not violate the Logan Act. That's what investigations and prosecutions are all about. Wouldn't you want the same sort of careful investigation of Hillary Clinton, reptilian criminal master-mind and leader of the Illuminati?

I don't get why the tin-foil hat crowd thinks that Clinton should be investigated with a hot poker but everybody formerly in the Trump administration should be treated with utmost respect, including people who have actually been indicted and convicted -- either based on a plea or after trial. Manafort had his ass kicked by a jury of his "peers." I would have convicted him on the charge of owning and ostrich jacket. And yet Donald will probably pardon him at some point. https://nypost.com/2018/11/28/trump-says-pardon-for-paul-manafort-still-a-possibility/

-- Jay Beattie.

[jbeattie]

"Nazi's" should not be possessive, and the next one I see on TV, I'll tell to to stop hauling off the Jews. "Stop that, you Nazi! Bad Nazi, bad!"

I'll also go back in time and stand up for the Jews -- and the starving Armenians and all the Romani killed by Stalin. Anyone else I should stand-up for while traveling back in time? Maybe the Jews when Moses led them out of Egypt? "What are you guys wandering around in the desert for? Israel is that way! Pffff."

BTW, what are you smoking? I want to get some for the weekend.

-- Jay Beattie.

[slto...@gmail.com]

If he violated the Logan Act which would probably be overthrown by the Supreme Court, since no one other than the President can actually authorize negotiations with a foreign government, thereby making any such negotiations moot, then he would have been charged with them. Instead the only thing he was charged with was lying to the FBI. And the agents who actually interviewed him said that he did no such thing. What's more they used an extremely questionable means of entrapment which forced him to chose between keeping a confidence or lying about it.

That this seems perfectly acceptable to you gives us a pretty good look into your principles.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Why not take all this political crap to a POLITICAL Newsgroup or forum?

Cheers

[John B. Slocomb]

You don't understand. Sltom (Silly Tom) is an authority on everything
under the sun and is merely informing the lessor informed proletariat
of his vast knowledge so that they can wallow in the glory of his vast
knowledge.

To stop this "political crap" would be to deny the world the benefits
of his vast knowledge.

cheers,

John B.

[slto...@gmail.com]

I love to hear you guys complain that your Democrat government is being criticized. Were you aware that the CIA modified the weather in North Vietnam and Cambodia in order to starve these people? You know how nice those Democrats are.

[news18]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2019 11:58:24 -0800, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


> Why not take all this political crap to a POLITICAL Newsgroup or forum?

Because he would get his arse handed to him quick smart.
Unfortunately, many usenet groups have similar infestation of political
know it alls.

[John B. Slocomb]

No, I wasn't aware that the CIA modified weather, in fact I was not
aware that the CIA was capable of modifying weather.

So, let us in on the secret. Perhaps a reference to a document that
proves your statement, or perhaps you might admit that you are telling
lies... yet again.

I do know that there was "cloud seeding" conducted by the Air Force
that went on in an attempt to prolong the monsoon over the Ho Chi Minh
Trail with the hope that it would soften the paths and roadways used
by the North to supply units in the South, but Thailand has used the
same program to increase rainfall in drier areas with very limited
success so it is debatable whether the U.S.'s efforts were of any
value in shortening the war. And, I believe that in a report to the
congress it was admitted that the effectiveness of the program was
unverifiable.

cheers,

John B.

[slto...@gmail.com]

So, no you weren't aware and need a reference but yes you were aware. I am never surprised by your statements.

[news18]

Most people who know even a lttle bit about "cloud seeding" will know
that claiming it affected the weather was at best a dubious long shot.
Somewhere around there is a apaper showeing that "rain dances" have a
greater correlation to the claim of "afffecting the weather".

[slto...@gmail.com]

It is not in the least "dubious" and was actually used by the CIA in the Vietnam war to mire the North Vietnamese and Cambodians down in mud and mire. There's no questioned that it worked. There is also no question that NASA has used cloud seeding to eliminate clouds in order to have clear weather for space launches.

Contrails have been blamed for large scale cooling along flight paths which are growing more and more numerous. These contrails are nothing more than cumulous clouds. At any moment in the USA there are 3,000 aircraft in the air. And they use the dirtiest of fuel.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/7/2019 12:06 PM, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Contrails have been blamed for large scale cooling along flight paths which are growing more and more numerous. These contrails are nothing more than cumulous clouds.

As I've said, there are many, many statements Tom makes that I don't
bother to correct. And I'm not even counting the spelling.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

When you get into the contrail conspiracies, you're full-on tin-foil hat. Never go full-on tin-foil hat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6WHBO_Qc-Q (1:25)

-- Jay Beattie.

[news18]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 09:06:37 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

> On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 7:04:24 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 07:00:36 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

>> > So, no you weren't aware and need a reference but yes you were aware.
>> > I am never surprised by your statements.
>>
>> Most people who know even a lttle bit about "cloud seeding" will know
>> that claiming it affected the weather was at best a dubious long shot.
>> Somewhere around there is a apaper showeing that "rain dances" have a
>> greater correlation to the claim of "afffecting the weather".
>
> It is not in the least "dubious" and was actually used by the CIA in the
> Vietnam war to mire the North Vietnamese and Cambodians down in mud and
> mire. There's no questioned that it worked. There is also no question
> that NASA has used cloud seeding to eliminate clouds in order to have
> clear weather for space launches.

Yawn, if you cloud seed in an area and time when it s going to rain
naturally, then you can hardly "cloud seeding worked".

>
> Contrails have been blamed for large scale cooling along flight paths
> which are growing more and more numerous. These contrails are nothing
> more than cumulous clouds. At any moment in the USA there are 3,000
> aircraft in the air. And they use the dirtiest of fuel.

And dirty fuel emits particles that water vapour coalesces about. So your
point is?

[AMuzi]

Right. I am just amazed that a good customer and old friend,
a successful small business owner and not stupid generally,
can look me right in the eye and explain that the
international order is spreading mind control drugs with
commercial airline contrails. WTF? He's not alone either.
This is almost like the flat-earther athletes.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[jbeattie]

Who needs mind-control contrails? People are self-stupefying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QugooaNRnsk

On my Saturday ride, I blew through a gaggle of dopes staring at their phones, apparently playing Pokemon Go in the middle of a bike path. Is there nothing better for these people to do on a Saturday afternoon? Sad.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B. Slocomb]

Actually there have been studies made as to whether contrails effect
temperatures and it has been shown that contrails do effect the
temperature, See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail#Contrails_and_climate

Researcher David J. Travis, an atmospheric scientist at the University
of Wisconsin-Whitewater, wrote in the science journal Nature that the
effect of the change in aircraft contrail formation during the three
days after the September 11 attacks...

The solution is, of course, to stop all aircraft flights over the U.S.

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

Many years ago Winston Churchill commented that "The best argument
against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average
voter".

I suggest that this also applies to non political discussions :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/7/2019 4:40 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:54:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2019 12:06 PM, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Contrails have been blamed for large scale cooling along flight paths which are growing more and more numerous. These contrails are nothing more than cumulous clouds.
>>
>> As I've said, there are many, many statements Tom makes that I don't
>> bother to correct. And I'm not even counting the spelling.
>
> Actually there have been studies made as to whether contrails effect
> temperatures and it has been shown that contrails do effect the
> temperature, See

That wasn't the part that was wrong. Tom needs to learn cloud types if
he's going to talk about them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 19:09:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/7/2019 4:40 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:54:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/7/2019 12:06 PM, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Contrails have been blamed for large scale cooling along flight paths which are growing more and more numerous. These contrails are nothing more than cumulous clouds.
>>>
>>> As I've said, there are many, many statements Tom makes that I don't
>>> bother to correct. And I'm not even counting the spelling.
>>
>> Actually there have been studies made as to whether contrails effect
>> temperatures and it has been shown that contrails do effect the
>> temperature, See
>
>That wasn't the part that was wrong. Tom needs to learn cloud types if
>he's going to talk about them.

Well, contrails are essentially water vapor and I guess clouds are too
:-)

cheers,

John B.

[slto...@gmail.com]

Of course you can't make blue sky rain. But they could make it rain in places where they wanted the rain to fall when it would normally be falling in
Thailand. Laos and Cambodia would receive the rain so that the north Vietnamese couldn't travel down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. This prevented attacks from the back side of the dividing line. This ALL worked. In fact North Vietnam admitted that they were beaten. But after Lyndon Johnson pulled American Troops out of South Vietnam he cut all military aid to the South and that gave the North the advantage again.

All it would have taken would have taken is for dumbass Beatie to look it us in Wikipedia to discover

"Contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing). NASA conducted a great deal of detailed research on atmospheric and climatological effects of contrails, including effects on ozone, ice crystal formation, and particle composition, during the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project (AEAP).[12] Global radiative forcing has been calculated from the reanalysis data, climatological models and radiative transfer codes. It is estimated to amount to 0.012 W/m² (watts per square meter) for 2005, with an uncertainty range of 0.005 to 0.026 W/m², and with a low level of scientific understanding.[13] Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming effect.[14] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m² to 17 mW/m². Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.

A 2015 study found that artificial cloudiness caused by contrail "outbreaks" reduces the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures. The former are decreased and the latter are increased, in comparison to temperatures the day before and the day after such outbreaks.[16] On days with outbreaks the day/night temperature difference was diminished by about 6 °F in the U.S. South and 5 °F in the Midwest."

But rather he wants to think this some sort of joke. While he completely believes in man-made global warming from something as preposterous as a couple of addition parts per million of CO2 the fact that at any moment we have 3,000 commercial air flights over this country and the known effects they have is a conspiracy theory.

[slto...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 12:21:45 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:

This is why they closed the loony bins - too many rich people were going over the line from Internet "news". These guys have brought back the Flat Earth belief. My older brother can recite this crap verbatim but cannot answer things like how a satellite could stay in orbit over a flat Earth.

[slto...@gmail.com]

Tell me Frank - what is the difference between a cumulus and an altocumulus. Or is this another of your juvenile typo bullshit?

[John B. Slocomb]

Quite simply, you don't know what you are talking about. Firstly, the
so called "Ho Chi Minh Trail" wasn't a "trail" it was a series of
paths, roads and byways, some with considerable improvement including
camp facilities that allowed the Northerners to transport supplies to
their troops in the south using trucks, bicycles, water buffalos, and
human porters.

The idea that "if it rains that won't be able to use the trail" is one
of the more stupid ideas that the U.S. had during the war. The idea
that all movement stops during the monsoon is ludicrous. It would mean
that nothing moved in most of South East Asia for nearly half of each
year.

And proof? Well, I guess that the fact that the North did supply their
people in the South all year round is proof, isn't it? And, even
General Westmoreland stated that he thought there was "no appreciable
increase" in rain from the project.

As for N. Vietnam admitting that they were beaten? I guess you'll have
to prove that as it appears to be just another one of your pipe
dreams.

I might add that Thailand has since about 1969 has had an official
"cloud seeding" project. The results vary from year to year but
overall the project has not been a resounding success, other than as a
political act to demonstrate the "government's concern" for the
farmers.


cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 1:22:52 PM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 4:09:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 1/7/2019 4:40 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

> > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:54:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 1/7/2019 12:06 PM, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Contrails have been blamed for large scale cooling along flight paths which are growing more and more numerous. These contrails are nothing more than cumulous clouds.
> > >>
> > >> As I've said, there are many, many statements Tom makes that I don't
> > >> bother to correct. And I'm not even counting the spelling.
> > >
> > > Actually there have been studies made as to whether contrails effect
> > > temperatures and it has been shown that contrails do effect the
> > > temperature, See
> >
> > That wasn't the part that was wrong. Tom needs to learn cloud types if
> > he's going to talk about them.
> >
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Tell me Frank - what is the difference between a cumulus and an altocumulus. Or is this another of your juvenile typo bullshit?

Well done, Tom! It took only a couple days to look up a couple cloud
types, plus their spellings!

Did you get to the high ones yet? Like, up where the airliners leave
their contrails?

- Frank Krygowski

[news18]

On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 10:15:18 -0800, sltom992 wrote:


>> And dirty fuel emits particles that water vapour coalesces about. So
>> your point is?
>
> Of course you can't make blue sky rain. But they could make it rain in
> places where they wanted the rain to fall when it would normally be
> falling in Thailand.

Do you have the figures to backup the claim, aka measureably extra
rainfall above and beyond natural variation. some people say global
warming, some say climate change and now you're saying cloud seeding.

> Laos and Cambodia would receive the rain so that
> the north Vietnamese couldn't travel down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Please explain how that worked since the theory depends on all transport
being by truck rather than foot and/or bicycle.

> This
> prevented attacks from the back side of the dividing line.

Alternatively, the NV simply switched the places they were doing "chain
pulling" and thus where they wanted to engage the invader.

> This ALL
> worked. In fact North Vietnam admitted that they were beaten.

Source? I'm still filled with mirth from the claims from the military
types that the whole Nam saga was a success.

> But after
> Lyndon Johnson pulled American Troops out of South Vietnam he cut all
> military aid to the South and that gave the North the advantage again.

Wasn't that just a typical "premature victory" claim, which seems to be
routine amongst US presidents.

[news18]

Here you are;
https://www.thoughtco.com/types-of-clouds-recognize-in-the-sky-4025569

[AMuzi]

The Soviets gave that a good go but ended up draining the
Aral Sea instead.

[Frank Krygowski]

Following the shift in topic (hey, it's Usenet!):

Way back when I was in college and had no money, I found a beautiful
little book in the library: _Instant Weather Forecasting_ by Alan Watts.
Along with some excellent fundamentals on weather, its main feature was
pages of photos of various cloud types, with explanations of what
phenomena generated the clouds and what sort of weather might be expected.

I couldn't afford to buy it, but I borrowed it from the library over and
over. I hoped to learn its principles and use them on long tours. I
envisioned riding across America and being expert with my choices of
route and shelter.

Well, I never became really expert, although I tried. And by the time I
actually did ride across America, it made a lot more sense to just look
at the weather channel whenever I got the chance.

These days, I can just call up a weather map on my phone (as I did
today) and see "Holy cow, we'd better head for home right now!"

The young whippersnappers have it so easy!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[David Scheidt]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

:These days, I can just call up a weather map on my phone (as I did

:today) and see "Holy cow, we'd better head for home right now!"

:The young whippersnappers have it so easy!

Ask Andrew about the Armistice day blizzard...

--
Truth is in your water heater.

[AMuzi]

Alan Watts the Zen philosopher? Huh didn't know that.

[AMuzi]

On 1/8/2019 9:21 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> :These days, I can just call up a weather map on my phone (as I did
> :today) and see "Holy cow, we'd better head for home right now!"
>
> :The young whippersnappers have it so easy!
>
> Ask Andrew about the Armistice day blizzard...
>

I knew men who lived through it.

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm sure it's a different Alan Watts. This guy was a meteorologist who
was also writing a physics textbook when he wrote _Instant Weather
Forecasting_.

I suspect the other Alan Watts would just say "The weather is what the
weather is."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

That works for me.

[slto...@gmail.com]

Firstly there were no "road improvements" that anyone in the US would call an improvement - muddy car tracks over a dozen miles are what they were.

Secondly you can't "increase" the amounts of rain by seeding but only have it occur in other areas than it would have fallen.

Thirdly the North Vietnamese surrendered at the Paris Peace Treaty and then because the Democrats wouldn't continue to support the South Vietnamese military and continue air support the North Vietnamese simply ignored the Treaty and the Democrats used that as an election point.

[jbeattie]

Wow! North Viet Nam surrendered? Who knew? BTW, to whom did they surrender?

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B. Slocomb]

Errr... I hate to be the one to tell you but the so called Ho Chi Minh
trail wasn't in the United States. And, (1) I have seen actual
photographs of portions of the trail, taken by Special Forces troops,
that had interdicted parts of the trail showing the man made
improvements, (2) the U.S. bombed portions of the trail and lo and
behold in a week or so the damage was repaired and (3) by 1974 the
"trail" had become a 2 lane paved highway.

>
>Secondly you can't "increase" the amounts of rain by seeding but only have it occur in other areas than it would have fallen.

Strange as the intent of Operation Popeye (the rain making program
that you have been talking about) was stated to be: " to induce rain
and extend the East Asian Monsoon season in support of U.S. government
efforts related to the War in Southeast Asia".

Unfortunately it wasn't a success and from the minutes of the Senate
hearing of May 19, 1874:
"While this program had an effect on the primitive road conditions in
these areas the results were certainly limited and unverifiable."

>
>Thirdly the North Vietnamese surrendered at the Paris Peace Treaty and then because the Democrats wouldn't continue to support the South Vietnamese military and continue air support the North Vietnamese simply ignored the Treaty and the Democrats used that as an election point.

Where did you get the idea that the N. Vietnamese "surrendered". What
actually effectively happened was that the U.S. withdrew from the war
basically for political reasons and agreed to support the South
logistically.

President Lyndon B. Johnson halted bombing operations over the
northern portion of the North Vietnam (Operation Rolling Thunder), in
order to encourage Hanoi to begin negotiations. Shortly thereafter,
Hanoi agreed to discuss a complete halt of the bombing, and a date was
set for representatives of both parties to meet in Paris, France. The
sides first met on May 10, with the delegations headed by Xuân Thuy,
who would remain the official leader of the North Vietnamese
delegation throughout the process, and U.S. ambassador-at-large W.
Averell Harriman.

For five months, the negotiations stalled as North Vietnam demanded
that all bombing of North Vietnam be stopped, while the U.S. side
demanded that North Vietnam agree to a reciprocal de-escalation in
South Vietnam; it was not until October 31 that Johnson agreed to end
the air strikes and serious negotiations could begin.

"The Paris Agreement Treaty would in effect remove all remaining US
Forces, including air and naval forces in exchange for Hanoi's POWs.
Direct U.S. military intervention was ended, and fighting between the
three remaining powers temporarily stopped for less than a day...

The agreement's provisions were immediately frequently broken with no
response from the United States. Fighting broke out in March 1973, and
North Vietnamese offenses enlarged their control by the end of the
year. Two years later, a massive North Vietnamese offensive conquered
South Vietnam. "

Tom, I keep telling you that "it is better to remain silent and be
thought a fool then to open your mouth and prove it" but you just
don't listen.


cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

A friend, who makes a study of such matters, commented that when the
N. Vietnamese came to Paris they took a long term lease on a building
while the Americans rented hotel rooms.

Which perhaps is an indication of who planned on getting their way in
the discussions.

cheers,

John B.

[slto...@gmail.com]

Here we have again another example of what lengths you will go to to attempt to prove me wrong. You really are a Fred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords

[slto...@gmail.com]

Hey dippy - I have flown over it in bombers at 5,000 ft. So shove your "pictures" since I looked at it through open bomb bay doors.

[jbeattie]

I read it. North Viet Nam did not surrender.

-- Jay Beattie.

[slto...@gmail.com]

No, the just agreed to return the POW's and cease waging war until they realized that the Democrats had no intentions of continuing air support and supplying arms and ammunition to the South Vietnamese Army.

[John B. Slocomb]

Yes Tom, I did read that and several other reports.

Now show us where it says that the "North Vietnamese surrendered at
the Paris Peace Treaty" as you wrote (above).
In fact it states that:

The document began with the statement that "the United States
and all other countries respect the independence, sovereignty, unity,
and territorial integrity of Vietnam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva
Agreements on Vietnam". The inclusion of this provision was a victory
for the communist side and the Vietcong... that would allow the South
Vietnamese people to "decide themselves the political future of South
Vietnam through genuinely free and democratic general elections under
international supervision."

It might be noted that this is essentially what the 1954 Geneva
Agreement stated... that the U.S. refused to honor.

cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

You did? In what bombers? At 5,000 ft? Through open bomb bay doors?

I have this awful feeling that you are telling lies again. So tell us,
is this a factor of your over heated imagination or were you a B-52
crew member? Details please. What positron on the crew and your rank
please.

cheers,

John B.

[news18]

So, effectively, the USA surrendered.

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 5:31:24 AM UTC, news18 wrote:
>
> So, effectively, the USA surrendered [in Vietnam].

Oh, it's worse than that. In The Devil's Pleasure Palace, Michael Walsh made the case that the US wanted to lose that war. Other historians and philosophers have made the point that stopping the 20th century's wars, and into this century, too soon just guaranteed that one unfinished war would be the flash-point for the next one. Iraq and Afghanistan are the recent examples commonly cited. Paul Johnson wrote of the deplorable effects of Americans' small-town morality when real politik was required. Walsh fixes the blame for this defeatist inability to conduct wars to their necessary conclusion on the Frankfurt School and its Critical Theory. I've been calling them commiepinkofellowtravellers since the 1960's and their theory the stinking detritus of resentful Germans who didn't know how to behave as guests in someone else's house. The little Antifa fascists are their children, and the modern Democratic Party is driven by Critical Theory's foolish fallacies. Their whole thing is cultural Marxism and, like other sorts of Marxism, it is a suicide cult in which limp-dick defeatism pigeonholes nicely into the their huge cupboard full of omnidirectional hate for Western civilisation. You're a representative example of what Critical Theory has done to two generations now.

Andre Jute
Resistant

[jbeattie]

Well that explains everything! Meanwhile, North Vietnam did not surrender.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

What's your problem, Jay? I didn't say North Vietnam surrendered.

Andre Jute
Sometimes I really wonder

[jbeattie]

Just wanted to recap after the winding ride though commie-pinkos, Antifa, Germans who are poor house guests, omni-directional hate for Western civilization, cats and dogs, living together, etc. I think we're all in agreement that North Vietnam didn't surrender. Just trying to establish some common ground in these divisive times.

-- Jay Beattie.

[slto...@gmail.com]

I got a haircut on Friday afternoon and my barber used to be a South Vietnamese government official. I told him what you said and he used a word that means "Eat Shit". He said that the agreement was that the North would cease their invasion of the South and that the US would provide air support and military supplies to the South Vietnamese to maintain the status quo.
Not only did the North not even slow up the continuous invasion but that the US did absolutely nothing.

I would suggest you come down here and discuss it with him but he wields a mean straight razor.

[slto...@gmail.com]

ABC had a story about Kings County this morning. They said that you have 250 times the crime rate as San Francisco and 400 times the crime rate of New York City.

Seems as how the Pacific North-west ain't all it's cracked up to be.

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm not going to bother looking for the ABC story to which you gave no
link. Maybe it's another pipe dream.

But since you're responding to Jay, "... you have 250 times the crime
rate ..." tells us you think he lives in Kings County. But Jay lives in
Portland, OR. That's in Multnomah County (which I know because my kid
used to live there.) The closest Kings County is Seattle, WA. The
Seattle to Portland bike ride (STP) is 200 miles.

You really ought to look stuff up, Tom. You average more than one
serious mistake per post.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 1/12/2019 6:24 PM, slto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Not only did the North not even slow up the continuous invasion...

Tom, that means they did NOT surrender!

Geez!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

According to what was reported Nixon had promised the South that the
U.S. would provide air support if necessary and during his
confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defense James
Schlesinger stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing
in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against
South Vietnam.

In 1975, U.S. Congress refused to appropriate additional military
assistance for South Vietnam, citing strong opposition to the war by
Americans and the loss of American equipment to the North by
retreating Southern forces.

So effectively, your barber is correct.

But, this is a far different story then your assertion that the North
surrendered.

cheers,

John B.

[slto...@gmail.com]

Telling me the distance when I've ridden the StoP several times including once continuous shows me that you think that 200 miles insulates Portland completely. You must really be from the sticks if you think that a distance that I did on a bike in 15 hours is free from the effects of the rest of the Pacific North-west.

[slto...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 3:47:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm not in the least surprise that again you're telling someone that was there that they didn't know what they were talking about. That is getting to be your special power. Do you wear a cape and tghts with a big red "JERK" on it?

"Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army -
Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?
A: Keenly
Q: Why?
A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
Q: What else?
A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect."

The North Vietnamese LOST the TET offensive in a huge way. https://daily.jstor.org/tet-what-were-they-thinking/

Of course you could have looked ANY of this up but being the expert Googler you are you couldn't find your ass with both hands.

[slto...@gmail.com]

"We won't fight you if you won't fight us" Uh, sure that wasn't a surrender.

[Andre Jute]

I was addressing your ignorant anonymous friend, "news18" who wrote:
> > > > So, effectively, the USA surrendered [in Vietnam].

I don't see that my remarks have anything to do with whether North Vietnam surrendered.

Andre Jute
I keep wondering if we're speaking the same English

[slto...@gmail.com]

Remember it's Beattie.

[jbeattie]

Pffff. One year, I did the STP in 8:47 -- with stops. I went with a bunch of racer pals with the intent of making time, and we picked up the best of the groups we passed and ended up with like a 50 rider pack with everyone working together. The pack fell apart by the Longview bridge, but then we picked up the two-day riders and found some fresh wheels. Great tail wind, but it was way too hot. People got dehydrated and hid under trees along HWY 30 in St. Helens. I didn't want to stop near the end and was begging people for sips from their water bottles. No takers! That was when they ran the one-day on Sunday. Now they run the one day riders on Saturday, probably so they don't need to keep the course open late.

Having ridden the ride, you know that 200 miles makes a lot of difference. Portland and Seattle are very different places -- and so are Seattle and SF. See https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/seattle_wa/san_francisco_ca/crime That doesn't look like a 250-fold difference. Here's PDX and Seattle: https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/portland_or/seattle_wa/crime Keep in mind that in PDX, we actually report property crimes. I reported the theft of my Roubaix -- and got it back. It was delivered to my office by the police officer who got it from the meth-head thief. You won't get that kind of service in Oakland. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/66825 Whatever you may think of this liberal hell-hole, god bless the PPB's bike program and Bike Index (to whom I made a generous donation).

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B. Slocomb]

Strange. I always thought that "Kings County" was in California.. I
looked it up and sure enough it is in California.

Jay doesn't live in California....

So why are you telling us about crime in California? Proud of it?

cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

Actually Tom, I didn't have to look it up as the information was
freely available then and probably is now.

You quote comes from an article printed in a French magazine (very
left leaning) regarding an interview with Ho. He was asked how
N.Vietnam, a provincial country, could win a war with the greatest
industrial nation in the world and Ho said that "we will continue to
fight until the American public will force their government to stop."
And they did.

I don't read French but the article was translated and printed in the
Special Forces briefing book which a good friend let me read before I
was transferred to Nha Trang.

As for losing the Tet Offensive. Yes from a military point they lost
the battle but from a political point of view they won... The Battle
of Hue, for example. They fought the Foreign Devil and with all it's
power they held him at bay for more then a month.

cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

Well have it your own way. But I find it very strange that if the
North surrendered at the Paris meeting how it can be that they won the
war?

(I will find it interesting to see how you squirm out of that corner)

cheers,

John B.

[news18]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:34:33 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:


> I was addressing your ignorant anonymous friend, "news18" who wrote:
>> > > > So, effectively, the USA surrendered [in Vietnam].
> I don't see that my remarks have anything to do with whether North
> Vietnam surrendered.
>
> Andre Jute I keep wondering if we're speaking the same English

Obviously not with the rant you posted. Perhaps f you paused for both
breath and whitespace, it might be recognisable as english rather than
bot speak.

News18 who has more pages of books for sale on amazon than AJ.

[Frank Krygowski]

So I pointed out that you were wrong about Jay living in Seattle. And
you rebut by deflecting to a Viet Nam sub-thread.

Typical. (Yawn.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B. Slocomb]

When you are outed you gotta do something :-)

cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Such a wonderful group of guys, too:
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

kumbaya indeed.


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[slto...@gmail.com]

The trouble with socialist economies is that you cannot advance. Hence corruption is everywhere and is assumed to be just another part of life. Sort of the same view as the Democrat Party. Only a sucker wouldn't get his share.

[John B. Slocomb]

What "cannot advance"?

Ho Chi Minh advanced from a kitchen helper to (effectively) King of
Vietnam. Võ Nguyên Giáp went from a school teacher to chief of the
Vietnamese military. Mao Zedong helped on his father's farm and ended
as the chairman of the Chinese communist party. Even Stalin was a
meteorologist at a Tiflis observatory and ended up as the Dictator of
Russia.

Tom, you ought not to talk about things about which you appear to know
nothing.


Cheers,
John B.

[jbeattie]

Why? I can read the Paris Peace Accord. It's cut and dried. North Vietnam did not surrender. South Vietnam did not occupy or police North Vietnam. North Vietnam did not pay reparations. There was no treaty. North Vietnam violated a cease fire.

Article 2

A cease fire shall be observed throughout South Viet-Nam as of 2400 hours GMT on January 27th 1973. At the same hour, the United States will stop all its military activities against the territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam by ground, air and naval forces, wherever they may be based, and end the mining of the territorial waters, ports, harbours, and waterways of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The United States will remove, permanently deactivate or destroy all the mines in the territorial waters, ports, harbours, and waterways of North Vietnam as soon as this Agreement goes into effect. The complete cessation of hostilities mentioned in this Article shall be durable and without limit of time…

Article 4

The United States will not continue its military involvement or intervene in the internal affairs of South Vietnam.

Article 5

Within sixty days of the signing of this Agreement, there will be a total withdrawal from South Vietnam of troops, military advisers, and military personnel including technical military personnel and military personnel associated with the pacification program, armaments, munitions, and war material of the United States and those of the other foreign countries mentioned in Article 3(a). Advisers from the above-mentioned countries to all paramilitary organisations and the police force will also be withdrawn within the same period of time.

Article 6

The dismantlement of all military bases in South Vietnam of the United States and of the other foreign countries mentioned in Article 3(a) shall be completed within sixty days of the signing of this Agreement…

Article 8

(a) The return of captured military personnel and foreign civilians of the parties shall be carried out simultaneously with and completed not later than the same day as the troop withdrawal mentioned in Article 5. The parties shall exchange complete lists of the above-mentioned captured military personnel and foreign civilians on the day of the signing of this Agreement.

(b) The Parties shall help each other to get information about those military personnel and foreign civilians of the parties missing in action, to determine the location and take care of the graves of the dead so as to facilitate the exhumation and repatriation of the remains…

Article 11

Immediately after the ceasefire, the two South Vietnamese parties will achieve national reconciliation and concord, end hatred and enmity, prohibit all acts of reprisal and discrimination against individuals or organisations that have collaborated with one side or the other… ensure the democratic liberties of the people: personal freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of meeting, freedom of organisation, freedom of political activities, freedom of belief, freedom of movement, freedom of residence, freedom of work, right to property ownership, and right to free enterprise…

Article 15

The reunification of Vietnam shall be carried out step by step through peaceful means on the basis of discussions and agreements between North and South Vietnam, without coercion or annexation by either party, and without foreign interference. The time for reunification will be agreed upon by North and South Vietnam…

Article 21

The United States anticipates that this Agreement will usher in an era of reconciliation with the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as with all the peoples of Indochina. In pursuance of its traditional policy, the United States will contribute to healing the wounds of war and to postwar reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and throughout Indochina.

Article 22

The ending of the war, the restoration of peace in Viet-Nam, and the strict implementation of this Agreement will create conditions for establishing a new, equal and mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on the basis of respect of each other’s independence and sovereignty, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.”


Blah, blah, blah . . . cease fire; we get our prisoners and . . . we're out of here!

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 1:18:35 AM UTC, John B. Slocomb wrote:

You are either a very obtuse little man, Slow Johnny, or you are mindlessly arguing against anything and everything Tom says because it is Tom saying it. It is one characteristic of the sadistic bullies on the net, like you and Krygowski, that, once they get their teeth into someone, they do not let go. And this is a fine example of that tendency.

Even you should be able to distinguish, say, the United States where anyone can rise into the middle classes at any time regardless of who else has risen previously, from the Soviet Union and its Asian workalikes where, as soon as the one man you name rose to a commanding position, all other avenues were violently closed. They killed the doctors and school teachers and journalists, in short the intellectuals, so that there should be no other leadership, and not higher class for anyone else to rise to. Here, for instance, is Martyn Latsis, speaking -- to members of what would later be known in the West as the KGB -- for Feliks Dzerzhinsk who had a throat infection (if you don't know who they are, you shouldn't be writing about Stalin), explaining Cheka extermination policy:
****
"‘We are not carrying out a war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We aren’t looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against Soviet power. The first question we ask is—to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education, profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of Red Terror.’

Luki told Larissa, ‘Under that definition the first one to be shot would be Lenin.‘"
****
The above is an extract from my novel TERRORS but the quotation is letter-perfectly correct, referenced in umpteen primary and secondary sources.

If you can't distinguish a zero-sum game with one's life as the penalty for even trying from opportunities permanently open to all the talents, you shouldn't pretend even to a blunt workman's wisdom. But yet you do. Since you do, you must be malicious when you pull a silly stunt like this one.

Andre Jute
Telling it like it is

[news18]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 14:30:19 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:


>
> You are either a very obtuse little man, Slow Johnny,

Umm, didn't you say that you ignored "slow johhny".

[slto...@gmail.com]

You think of that as "advancing" do you? So you're just another of those little socialists that were afraid to come back to this country because you were well aware that here you'd have to try and you knew that you'd fail.

[slto...@gmail.com]

Yeah, we have you second most dangerous city in the country. That's saying a lot when you have Chicago and Detroit.

[slto...@gmail.com]

I can have my hands on my sides and backhand someone with an open hand so hard that it knocks them down and so fast that even I can't see it coming. It is a totally automatic reflex for dealing with bullies. So I can assure you that these little cowards hiding behind the written word would never say anything like they do here more than once to anyone's face.

Some guy was mouthing off like leftists do here in California now and I told him what I thought of him as I was leaving. He jumped up. He had me by 2" and half again my weight so he made the mistake of thinking he was tough. He took three swings at me. I backed off the first two and warned him away. The third swing had the proprietor calling for an ambulance. And there was nothing that they could do to me since I had tried to avoid a fight. I only hit him once. And every time I went into that place all the normal people would say hi because they didn't have to put up with the likes of him anymore.

Jay is reasonable because he knows the limits of the law. But that doesn't stop him from disagreeing simply because he can. But then lawyers have to develop a sense of discord in order to become lawyers. My brother-in-law was the world's biggest asshole but in the courtroom there was no one more competent or knowledgeable so I expect Jay to be the same sort.

Frank has something wrong with him. He can't weigh stuff in a bag somehow. Two 16 oz CO2 cartridges, the filler tool, two normal tubes, superlight tire levers, a small quick patch kit (peel and stick) and a multitool weight the same the world over. Apparently he doesn't count the weight of his handlebar bag. Everyone of the rides I go on carries bags like this and they all weight more or less the same. A lot of the people don't use those plastic levers but bring along steel levers. How is it that they people have the same weight in kits as I do but Frank only carries a couple of oz?

You and Joerg are the only real riders that I can see. Perhaps Jay does but then getting a straight answer you could trust out of him would be like my brother-in-law who died because he couldn't tell the truth even to his own doctor.

[slto...@gmail.com]

I don't even think Slow Johnny rides a bike. I think that he drives everywhere and simply sees Thai's riding bicycles.

[jbeattie]

Hey, PDX didn't even make the top 100! I'm so disappointed. https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top100dangerous And what does any of this have to do with the Paris Peace Accords?

-- Jay Beattie.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 10:11:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Way back when I was in college and had no money, I found a beautiful
> little book in the library: _Instant Weather Forecasting_ by Alan Watts.

Must be a different Watts than I'm familiar with.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 7:36:19 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:41:08 -0800 (PST), slto...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >Secondly you can't "increase" the amounts of rain by seeding but only have it occur in other areas than it would have fallen.
>
> Strange as the intent of Operation Popeye (the rain making program
> that you have been talking about) was stated to be: " to induce rain
> and extend the East Asian Monsoon season in support of U.S. government
> efforts related to the War in Southeast Asia".

Seems to me to kind of like thinking you're going to stoop an eskimo by making it snow more, which would somehow give those of northern european descent an advantage.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 11:38:01 AM UTC-5, slto...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, January 10, 2019 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 12:41:08 -0800 (PST), slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> >

> > >On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 3:35:22 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
> > >> rOn Tue, 8 Jan 2019 10:15:18 -0800 (PST), slto...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 11:16:53 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, 07 Jan 2019 09:06:37 -0800, sltom992 wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 7:04:24 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2019 07:00:36 -0800, sltom992 wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> > So, no you weren't aware and need a reference but yes you were aware.
> > >> >> >> > I am never surprised by your statements.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Most people who know even a lttle bit about "cloud seeding" will know
> > >> >> >> that claiming it affected the weather was at best a dubious long shot.
> > >> >> >> Somewhere around there is a apaper showeing that "rain dances" have a
> > >> >> >> greater correlation to the claim of "afffecting the weather".
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > It is not in the least "dubious" and was actually used by the CIA in the
> > >> >> > Vietnam war to mire the North Vietnamese and Cambodians down in mud and
> > >> >> > mire. There's no questioned that it worked. There is also no question
> > >> >> > that NASA has used cloud seeding to eliminate clouds in order to have
> > >> >> > clear weather for space launches.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Yawn, if you cloud seed in an area and time when it s going to rain
> > >> >> naturally, then you can hardly "cloud seeding worked".
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Contrails have been blamed for large scale cooling along flight paths
> > >> >> > which are growing more and more numerous. These contrails are nothing
> > >> >> > more than cumulous clouds. At any moment in the USA there are 3,000
> > >> >> > aircraft in the air. And they use the dirtiest of fuel.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And dirty fuel emits particles that water vapour coalesces about. So your
> > >> >> point is?
> > >> >
> > >> >Of course you can't make blue sky rain. But they could make it rain in places where they wanted the rain to fall when it would normally be falling in
> > >> >Thailand. Laos and Cambodia would receive the rain so that the
> > >> north Vietnamese couldn't travel down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. This
> > >> prevented attacks from the back side of the dividing line. This ALL
> > >> worked. In fact North Vietnam admitted that they were beaten. But
> > >> after Lyndon Johnson pulled American Troops out of South Vietnam he
> > >> cut all military aid to the South and that gave the North the
> > >> advantage again.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Quite simply, you don't know what you are talking about. Firstly, the
> > >> so called "Ho Chi Minh Trail" wasn't a "trail" it was a series of
> > >> paths, roads and byways, some with considerable improvement including
> > >> camp facilities that allowed the Northerners to transport supplies to
> > >> their troops in the south using trucks, bicycles, water buffalos, and
> > >> human porters.
> > >>
> > >> The idea that "if it rains that won't be able to use the trail" is one
> > >> of the more stupid ideas that the U.S. had during the war. The idea
> > >> that all movement stops during the monsoon is ludicrous. It would mean
> > >> that nothing moved in most of South East Asia for nearly half of each
> > >> year.
> > >>
> > >> And proof? Well, I guess that the fact that the North did supply their
> > >> people in the South all year round is proof, isn't it? And, even
> > >> General Westmoreland stated that he thought there was "no appreciable
> > >> increase" in rain from the project.
> > >>
> > >> As for N. Vietnam admitting that they were beaten? I guess you'll have
> > >> to prove that as it appears to be just another one of your pipe
> > >> dreams.
> > >>
> > >> I might add that Thailand has since about 1969 has had an official
> > >> "cloud seeding" project. The results vary from year to year but
> > >> overall the project has not been a resounding success, other than as a
> > >> political act to demonstrate the "government's concern" for the
> > >> farmers.
> > >
> > >Firstly there were no "road improvements" that anyone in the US would call an improvement - muddy car tracks over a dozen miles are what they were.
> >
> > Errr... I hate to be the one to tell you but the so called Ho Chi Minh
> > trail wasn't in the United States. And, (1) I have seen actual
> > photographs of portions of the trail, taken by Special Forces troops,
> > that had interdicted parts of the trail showing the man made
> > improvements, (2) the U.S. bombed portions of the trail and lo and
> > behold in a week or so the damage was repaired and (3) by 1974 the
> > "trail" had become a 2 lane paved highway.

> >
> > >
> > >Secondly you can't "increase" the amounts of rain by seeding but only have it occur in other areas than it would have fallen.
> >
> > Strange as the intent of Operation Popeye (the rain making program
> > that you have been talking about) was stated to be: " to induce rain
> > and extend the East Asian Monsoon season in support of U.S. government
> > efforts related to the War in Southeast Asia".
> >

> > Unfortunately it wasn't a success and from the minutes of the Senate
> > hearing of May 19, 1874:
> > "While this program had an effect on the primitive road conditions in
> > these areas the results were certainly limited and unverifiable."
> >
> > >
> > >Thirdly the North Vietnamese surrendered at the Paris Peace Treaty and then because the Democrats wouldn't continue to support the South Vietnamese military and continue air support the North Vietnamese simply ignored the Treaty and the Democrats used that as an election point.
> >
> > Where did you get the idea that the N. Vietnamese "surrendered". What
> > actually effectively happened was that the U.S. withdrew from the war
> > basically for political reasons and agreed to support the South
> > logistically.
> >
> > President Lyndon B. Johnson halted bombing operations over the
> > northern portion of the North Vietnam (Operation Rolling Thunder), in
> > order to encourage Hanoi to begin negotiations. Shortly thereafter,
> > Hanoi agreed to discuss a complete halt of the bombing, and a date was
> > set for representatives of both parties to meet in Paris, France. The
> > sides first met on May 10, with the delegations headed by Xuân Thuy,
> > who would remain the official leader of the North Vietnamese
> > delegation throughout the process, and U.S. ambassador-at-large W.
> > Averell Harriman.
> >
> > For five months, the negotiations stalled as North Vietnam demanded
> > that all bombing of North Vietnam be stopped, while the U.S. side
> > demanded that North Vietnam agree to a reciprocal de-escalation in
> > South Vietnam; it was not until October 31 that Johnson agreed to end
> > the air strikes and serious negotiations could begin.
> >
> > "The Paris Agreement Treaty would in effect remove all remaining US
> > Forces, including air and naval forces in exchange for Hanoi's POWs.
> > Direct U.S. military intervention was ended, and fighting between the
> > three remaining powers temporarily stopped for less than a day...
> >
> > The agreement's provisions were immediately frequently broken with no
> > response from the United States. Fighting broke out in March 1973, and
> > North Vietnamese offenses enlarged their control by the end of the
> > year. Two years later, a massive North Vietnamese offensive conquered
> > South Vietnam. "
> >
> > Tom, I keep telling you that "it is better to remain silent and be
> > thought a fool then to open your mouth and prove it" but you just
> > don't listen.
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > John B.
>
> Hey dippy - I have flown over it in bombers at 5,000 ft. So shove your "pictures" since I looked at it through open bomb bay doors.

What bombers that carried internal payloads flew over north vietnam at 5000'? The only bombers the US used extensively in vietnam were B-52's which generally dropped their payload in the 30,000' range. it wasn't likely a b-52 (or any tactical bomber) would be flying at 5000' over hostile territory - that's well within range of a shoulder-launched AAM in that era.

Even so, are you going to tell us you could discern the condition of a road under a jungle canopy from 5000 feet away?

Not only are you smarter and more well-informed than anyone in this forum, you also have super vision powers!

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom's conversations are a study in chaos theory.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 2:04:17 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

> Tom's conversations are a study in chaos theory.
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Or the rantings of a bonafide lunatic.

Cheers

[slto...@gmail.com]

We would fly in at 20,000 and at the SAM sites would drop down to 5,000 ft to more accurately hit them. Not that it mattered a great deal since they were put up again next run.

[slto...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:47:57 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

As John pointed out, most of the Ho Chi Minh trail wasn't a jungle trail but was dirt roads. You don't believe they moved tons of material on their backs do you?

[AMuzi]

Viet Minh and Viet Cong were big on corvee labor, merging to
slavery but also made great use of French bicycles:

https://www.historynet.com/pedal-power-bicycles-in-wartime-vietnam.htm

[news18]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:58:43 -0800, sltom992 wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 8:47:57 AM UTC-8,
> funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:

> As John pointed out. Most of the Ho Chi Minh trail wasn't trails at all
> but dirt roads.

Lol, the predictable Tommie side shuffle.

what has me wondering that since Vietnam has mountains to 10,000 feet and
Cambodia to 6,000 feet, what was Tommie doing at 5,000? looking for rock
filled clouds?

[news18]

Lol, another tommie side shuffle and the answer has already been posted,
and for once it is on topic.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

sure, let's get even closer to a SAM site. HAte tot tell you, but the accuracy of a B-52 was sch that a targeted 1/4 mile could be completely incinerated from 30,000 feet, so there was no need to get inot such range that a SAM could hit its target from a lunch within a few seconds. You may have been a passenger in a recon, but you never flew a bombing mission.

> Not that it mattered a great
> deal since they were put up again next run.

Again, are you going to tell us you could discern the condition of a road (dirt or not) under a jungle canopy from 5000 feet away?

[slto...@gmail.com]

I was flying in B52's. What were you doing? What service did you ever attempt to get in? None, because losers will always be losers.

[slto...@gmail.com]

I hate to tell you moronic fool - I was a Bomb/Nav technician on B52's. I wasn't supposed to fly on them, but the stateside bases would send the people they didn't like to Guam and that meant that the good shop technicians would stay at home. So about every other fight, something would break down that would have to be repaired in-flight and I would go with them because no one else wanted to be there with the fireworks.

But be sure and tell us all about it from a complete position of ignorance you damn fool.

If there's one thing that's so delightful it's looking at the sort of lunatic crap you spout out of your mouth.

Tell me about these "jungle canopies" while you're stupid enough to say mountains in the same breath you damn fool. Or better yet - tell us that B52's bombed from 30,000 ft. Apparently you're of the opinion that an electro-mechanical computer is of infinite accuracy.